PDA

View Full Version : Do you hold to the Austrian School of Economics?



Jack
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 02:43 AM
http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp


My score is 98 / 100. :D

Telperion
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 06:07 AM
43/100. I had more Chicago school answers than any other type.

Phlegethon
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 10:59 AM
Both schools should be more correctly referred to as Jewish schools.

Wichmann
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 01:15 PM
Both schools should be more correctly referred to as Jewish schools.Correct.

Members of the Austrian School of Economics:


Carl Menger (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Menger)
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_von_B%C3%B6hm-Bawerk)
Ludwig von Mises (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises)
Murray Rothbard (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard)
Friedrich Hayek (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek)
Israel Kirzner (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Israel_Kirzner&action=edit)
Walter Block (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Walter_Block&action=edit)
Ralph Raico (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ralph_Raico&action=edit)
Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe)
Ayn Rand (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand)

Agrippa
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 02:59 PM
Yes, its nothing else than a Jewish "school", stamped by the mean character which see's the world as a shop of the Jewish and partly Anglocalvinistic spirit.

Your score is: 28 / 100.

I mostly answered in a Keynesian/Neoclassical way, had many Socialist, some Chikago and of course some answers even from the "Austrian" school.
But Keynesian/Neoclassical answers dominated...

Wichmann
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 04:57 PM
The faces to the names!

Hayek has got the same look like Greenspan, incredible! :-O

Die bedeutendsten Gelehrten der
österreichischen Schulehttp://www.hayek-institut.at/Medien/Bilder/menger_foto.gifCarl Menger
(1840–1921)
„Grundsätze der Volkswirtschafts-
lehre“
”Principles of Economics“http://www.hayek-institut.at/Medien/Bilder/bawerk_foto.gifEugen von
Böhm-Bawerk
(1851–1914)
„Positive Theorie
des Kapitals“
”The Positive Theory of Capital“http://www.hayek-institut.at/Medien/Bilder/hayek_klein_foto.gifFriedrich
August
von Hayek
(1899–1992)
Nobelpreis/
Nobel Prize 1974
„Der Weg zur Knechtschaft“
”The Road to
Serfdom“http://www.hayek-institut.at/Medien/Bilder/haberler_foto.gifGottfried von Haberler
(1902–1995)
„Der Internationale Handel“
”International Trade“http://www.hayek-institut.at/Medien/Bilder/mises_foto.gifLudwig von Mises
(1881–1973)
„Nationalökonomie“
”Human Action“http://www.hayek-institut.at/Medien/Bilder/machlub_foto.gifFritz Machlup
(1901–1983)
”The Political Economy of Monopoly, Business, Labour and Government Policies“

Master-of-Swords
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 07:24 PM
http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp


My score is 98 / 100. :D

The Jewish school of economics you mean?

Telperion
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 08:14 PM
Both schools should be more correctly referred to as Jewish schools.
Sure, though one could say the same thing about the Marxist flavour of the "socialist" answers on the test.

Agrippa
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 08:37 PM
Sure, though one could say the same thing about the Marxist flavour of the "socialist" answers on the test.

The difference is, not all Marxists and for sure not all Socialists (which is not the same, first are dogmatic about Marx and Engels, last can be just more collective oriented-social) where Jews, but almost all fathers of this construct.

Furthermore, the whole spirit is Jewish, whereas Marxism is to some extend influenced by Jews, but rather the opposite of classic Jewish thinking.

So such a liberal capitalistic idea is their "natural" (even in their religion and culture) way of thinking, the way they lived even in Palastine before the diaspora, even in the medieval age in Europe.

Marxism was in a way the reaction to the accusation that Jews are just greedy, oriented on money and profit. Marx' biography and his writings make that clear.
Sure, dogmatic Marxism was egalitarian and materialistic in a way, not too many Europeans would have thought at that time this way, but to compare Marxism with this liberal ideology is still wrong.

Now the (at least plutocratic) Jews dont need to be "moralic" any more, they can live their "profit dream" in the nightmare of America, live like in a trader society of the Middle East, just in a big scale, and because of the American dominance, they can try to spread their sick plutocratic worldview all over the world.

In the whole "Austrian School" you just see the spirit of the grocer who wants to justify his shameless profits and destruction of ressources, social structures and communities - NOTHING ELSE!
This is just the theory to justify the rule and exploitation of the world by the international, to a great extend Jewish and Anglocalvinistic, plutocracy, I can repeat that as often as it is necessary.

Marxism had at least idealistic goals, might they be realistic or not. What we see in this economic school is the naked grimace of a greedy inhumaneness.
All nice words are just there to cheat and confuse those people which are so far not able to see the truth or to soothe the conscience of the profiteers.

Neoliberalism must be crushed and this ideas outspoken by the "Austrian" and "Chikago" school are, though you can partially learn from them, the hypocrisy which has to mask the implicit inhumaneness, destruction and crime we see in the predatory capitalism.

And again, Socialism is not the same as Marxism and some of the answers which were labelled "Socialist" in this test, can be called decent, social, or common sense or collective oriented as well, without being in any form dogmatic in a Marxist way of thinking.

Stríbog
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 10:58 PM
All economic systems on any large scale are abysmal and doomed to failure. I would not be proud of aligning myself with either pseudo-libertarian international finance capitalism or Marxist egalitarianism.

Telperion
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 11:14 PM
Sure, dogmatic Marxism was egalitarian and materialistic in a way, not too many Europeans would have thought at that time this way, but to compare Marxism with this liberal ideology is still wrong.
The comparison is valid to the extent that Marxism and economic liberalism are both rooted in a strictly materialistic and rationalistic worldview, which discounts the value of organically evolved cultures, practices and institutions, not to mention treating race as an irrelevancy. Their points of difference with each other largely focus on the production and distribution of material goods and associated services.

I would note as a more general point that there are are normative and positive aspects to all of these theories, and most of the questions on the test tended towards being positive rather than normative. In my view, the Chicago school offers a more accurate positive explanation of how a capitalist economy actually functions, with regard to most issues, than do the other schools. It follows that their normative economic policy prescriptions would also tend to be more effective in attaining goals such as increasing economic growth within the context of a capitalist economy. Whether one should seek to promote such goals, normatively, is of course another issue.



And again, Socialism is not the same as Marxism and some of the answers which were labelled "Socialist" in this test, can be called decent, social, or common sense or collective oriented as well, without being in any form dogmatic in a Marxist way of thinking.I would say that socialism is not necessarily the same as Marxism, but most of the "socialist" answers on that test had a distinctly Marxist flavour. For instance, 1(b)

"Property is at the heart of most serious inequalities and oppressions in modern civilization. Only by regulation, transfer payments, redistribution of property, and common ownership can society arrive at fairness, justice, and human dignity for all."

is more generically socialist, but 3(c)

" "Interest" is just a codeword for profit; a capitalist earns interest when he spends less on wages and raw materials than he earns from selling the final product. This surplus value arises from the exploited workers hired by the capitalist. Under the wage system, workers are paid the bare minimum they need to survive, even though the full product of their labor far exceeds their compensation from the employer. In this respect, the wage system is no different from traditional slavery, where the slave owner keeps the product yielded by his slaves’ toil, and from this fund only "pays" them enough to maintain their bare survival. Obviously interest is a barbaric feature of capitalist societies, and will disappear once the system of wage slavery is overturned."

is explicitly Marxist, given its references to "surplus value" and "wage slavery". Without conducting an inventory, my impression is that most of the "socialist" answers were of this kind.

Agrippa
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 11:36 PM
Of course those answers were not mine...so yes, it depends on the exact question...otherwise I wouldnt have answered in a "Austrian" or "Chikago" way in some questions.


I would note as a more general point that there are are normative and positive aspects to all of these theories, and most of the questions on the test tended towards being positive rather than normative. In my view, the Chicago school offers a more accurate positive explanation of how a capitalist economy actually functions, with regard to most issues, than do the other schools. It follows that their normative economic policy prescriptions would also tend to be more effective in attaining goals such as increasing economic growth within the context of a capitalist economy. Whether one should seek to promote such goals, normatively, is of course another issue.

Sometimes the Chikago school makes "ok" analysis, thats something I recognize as well and is the reason why I said "we can partially learn from them".

But as I said the plutocracy masks certain tendencies with nice words and correct argumentations, though this has not too much to do with their actual policy.
And if its about the concrete policy of the "Chikago school" and the "Chikago boys" in particular, they are nothing else but colonists and exploitators for the multinationals and the plutocracy and ruin various markets.

They fail because they dont (want to) recognize the role of the stock market and the plutocracy in a modern economy like they should.
They dismiss to act against the degeneracies of the liberal capitalism and promote even more aggressive predatory capitalism against their better knowledge or in a illusion.

Either way I dont see how their ideas work PRACTICALLY better for whole or economies and for sure not for the majority of the people.

So for analytical questions and certain premises you probably can learn something from the "Chikago school", but their concrete ideology, whole worldview, goals and measures are an enemy of higher culture and higher humanity in the best sense.
Even what you said, that they can systematically increase REAL economic growth is insecure and debatable.

Telperion
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 11:48 PM
Of course those answers were not mine...so yes, it depends on the exact question...otherwise I wouldnt have answered in a "Austrian" or "Chikago" way in some questions.
Yes, the test forced anyone taking it to pick one of several pre-determined answers for each question, though none of these answers may have been the ideal answer from the test-taker's point of view.



Either way I dont see how their ideas work PRACTICALLY better for whole or economies and for sure not for the majority of the people.

Even what you said, that they can systematically increase REAL economic growth is insecure and debatable.
I tend to be skeptical of Keynesianism on the grounds that it places too much faith in the ability of central decision-makers to micro-manage economic trends, while the Chicago school (for reasons that could take a long time to explain) strikes me as having a better grasp than the Austrian school on the role of the money supply in conditioning economic activity. So, of the three, I would tend to lean toward the Chicago policies.

But, I would say you're right that none of these schools of thought have adequately come to grips with one of the more obvious defects of contemporary capitalism in western countries, namely the growth of the financial/services sector in combination with the decline of the manufacturing sector.

Agrippa
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 12:35 AM
The "Austrian school" reminds me somehow on a dreaming capitalist on dope who is hypocritical about his true goals on the one hand and want to dream on, on the other.
So I can understand why you prefer the hardliners of the "Chikago school" which have at least some sense of realism.
Just some examples from the test of the absurdity of the "Austrian school" represented by the infamous Hayek f.e.:


Order in society can emerge through voluntary transactions between individuals. People can engage in private transactions for anything they value, including laws and security. Since all choices concern alternative future states of the world, each individual alone understands which goods best suit him or her, including protection and dispute resolution. Ideally, government would be limited to protecting rights, but government as we know it serves elites and violates rights to self-ownership, and efforts to limit governmental powers tend to fail. Private institutions for security and arbitration are more efficient and moral than public equivalents.

Ah well, this sounds to me as unrealistic as the speech of a hallucinating priest. Of course its obvious why they are called "Anarcho-Capitalists" or similar names by some.

An interesting point in both systems, Chikago and Austrian is that they say: (Higher wages =)
This increases unemployment among low productivity workers.

Interesting point which is in my opinion clearly motivated from a plutocratic point of view and even more interesting, certain states had the best employment rates with high wages, many worse with low ones. Not to speak about consumption and the situation of the people as working poor which would be the long term result (from a realistic point of view) of either neoliberal approaches.


I tend to be skeptical of Keynesianism on the grounds that it places too much faith in the ability of central decision-makers to micro-manage economic trends

I can understand your scepticism about certain parts of Keynesianism too, because I see the weaknesses as well and just want to add that it might depend more on the overall system and concrete policy than the "general Keynesian formula" which is sometimes quite open to interpretation in my opinion anyway. (same is true for the other approaches as well, the clearest concept is the Marxist one probably...)


If its about ecology, an important point for me, the "Austrian school" shows once again its false idiocy:


Virtually all issues concerning the environment involve conflicts over ownership. So long as there is private ownership, owners themselves solve these conflicts by forbidding and punishing trespass. The incentive to conserve is an inherent feature of the market incentive structure. So too is the incentive to preserve all things of value. The liability for soiling another's property should be borne by the person who caused the damage. Common ownership is no solution. Because national parks, for example, are not privately owned, the goal of economical management will always be elusive.

Well, if I wouldnt have people in my city which teach this shit, not even in the economic, but in the social and arts sciences as well, I would mean they just kidding, its a bad joke.
If I think about the fact that my university honours this idiots and the policy is going somewhat in their direction I can just puke!

How can anybody with just any sense of reality, not corrupted as direct profiteer and even if one, can beliefe this total nonsense?!?


Taxes raise money for transfers to special interests and public employees. In contrast to private businesses that supply the goods that consumers are willing to buy, public officials have no means to assess data as to what consumers truly demand, much less how to go about meeting those demands economically. Lacking the ability to act economically, public officials respond to interest groups, so tax money will necessarily end up with narrow interest groups rather than going to fund the provision of public goods. Taxes typically go to waste or to special interests that do not and should not own the funds.

Want to kill the state policy and give ALL the power to the multinational corporations and plutocracy or what?

I think we need totally new approaches and it will not be enough to just change the flow of money and bounties alone, the whole society needs a reform desperately - some years more and only a revolution can do it.

Joe000
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 02:07 AM
Hayek was a Jew? And also Jack, I remember you defended Austrian views quite awhile ago against Moody Lawless but then you gave up on them. What happened?

Jack
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 02:06 PM
I'll respond to this thread tomorrow in the most civilized manner in which I'm capable. But in all honesty most of the stuff I've just read is bullshit.


Hayek was a Jew?That's news. Last I heard he was a German.


And also Jack, I remember you defended Austrian views quite awhile ago against Moody Lawless but then you gave up on them. What happened?
Thanks, Joe. What happened is I reversed into something I decided to call power nihilism. From there I rebuilt my theory of human nature, and read into Carl Schmitt, Michel Foucault, and more recently Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, amongst others. Parts of Austrian economics, especially the marginal utility theory of value, as well as time preference, is something I never really gave up on. By priveliging politics over economics I'd transferred my interests from anarcho-capitalism towards protectionism, though now I'm not sure which I favour. But I have never since my debates with Moody Lawless disputed the claims of the Austrian school to truth in the field of economics.

Phlegethon
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 02:14 PM
That's news. Last I heard he was a German.
Well, if you want to put it in statist term he was an Austro-Hungarian. Of course that does not tell a thing as Germans, Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Hungarians, Romanians and a lot of other peoples shared that "nationality".
Hayek was not Jewish, but his whole system of thought was, at least after he visited the East Coast in 1923. Most of his teachers, commilitones and students were Jewish, though. That is why the Hayek school never made it out of the fringe in Germany but thrived in the U.S., where the main ideologues emigrated to.

Agrippa
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 02:42 PM
By priveliging politics over economics I'd transferred my interests from anarcho-capitalism towards protectionism, though now I'm not sure which I favour.

Thats of course a good move because the free trade policy of the last decades is the key to our current situation.

It all began with a bad state and economic policy in the USA, many sectors were just out-dated and the trade with Japan was not a big success to say the least.
Now that was the chance under Reagan in the US and Thatcher in GB, to bring up those Jews and their thoughts.

Well, talk about free trade. What does free trade mean without harmonized ecological, legal, social etc. international standards in a flexible (because of low transport costs) world economy?
It can just mean the decline of the West and the ruthless exploitation of the rest by predatory capitalism if combined with a exuberantly growing, uncontrolled financial sector.

Interestingly countries which followed the dogmatic "new economy" style lost most of the times, at least they didnt reached more than they would with another system, only the distribution of wealth changed drastically.

The only winning country is the absolute opposite of the new dogmas, China. They control their currency, their market, are quite restrictive, intervene ard use protectionism.

If the West with a total different value of the currency and therefore nominal wages and other social, ecological etc. standards cannot win in a free trade competition in too many sectors.

So there are just two ways, protectionism or international standards.

Even for the developing countries the current system is a catastrophy because of the debts-policy (which is a problem for Europe as well) and the predatary capitalism style which doesnt build up too much but just use what can be used for maximum profits.

I can just congratulate every country which leaves the path of the new economic orthodoxy.

Jack
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2004, 01:50 AM
Yes, its nothing else than a Jewish "school", stamped by the mean character which see's the world as a shop of the Jewish and partly Anglocalvinistic spirit.Now, what exactly does this mean? Austrian economics is built on praxeology, i.e. the logic of action - ends and means, value and utility. I see nothing particularly 'Jewish' about this.

Why do you prefer the Keynesian answers? Is it because you believe they're 'correct', or because Keynes was a gentile European (also a homosexual, but that's something else)? Does Keynes being a gentile European have a causal effect on whether or not his economics is correct? Is Mises necessarily wrong because he's of Jewish extraction?


The Jewish school of economics you mean?Better than that 'German' school of economics known as Marxism.


Furthermore, the whole spirit is Jewish, whereas Marxism is to some extend influenced by Jews, but rather the opposite of classic Jewish thinking.

Marxism was in a way the reaction to the accusation that Jews are just greedy, oriented on money and profit. Marx' biography and his writings make that clear.Actually, Marxism is thoroughly rooted in Jewish messianism and ressentiment, which is more characteristic of Jews than anything else, including 'greed... money and profit'.


Sure, dogmatic Marxism was egalitarian and materialistic in a way, not too many Europeans would have thought at that time this way, but to compare Marxism with this liberal ideology is still wrong.You're perfectly correct. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton etc. were all Jews. So were the writers of the Magna Carta which defended the rights of individual Englishmen. The libetarian nature of ancient Germanic society also reeks of Jewishness. The anarchist nature of ancient Ireland is about as Jewish as you can get. No, really, Agrippa: What sort of rubbish are you going to spout out next?

Classical liberalism is a product solely of whites, while some individual Jews worked on building up the economic defense of it. Mises is a neo-Kantian: Kant was a Nordic white. Rothbard, who is a neo-Aristotelian, bases his ethics on Aquinas, who was a Nordic, Catholic European. Can you actually defeat their arguments or are you going to continue throwing ad-hominems around?


This is just the theory to justify the rule and exploitation of the world by the international, to a great extend Jewish and Anglocalvinistic, plutocracy, I can repeat that as often as it is necessary.
Ah, yes. Resentment against the English world is something that pervades hated of the West amongst a significant section of continental Europeans, particularly the Germans and the French. Probably because we're more sucessful than you.


Marxism had at least idealistic goals, might they be realistic or not. What we see in this economic school is the naked grimace of a greedy inhumaneness.
Oh, so you don't see mass theft and murder as 'inhumaneness', while you consider consensual production and trade, mutual agreement and respect for individuals as 'destruction and crime'?


All nice words are just there to cheat and confuse those people which are so far not able to see the truth or to soothe the conscience of the profiteers.
See, the problem is, we're not debating the ethics of capitalism, which I can defend more than well enough. What we're debating is the truth-legitimacy of their economic model, which as far as I can see is bulletproof, while that of Keynes is not.


The comparison is valid to the extent that Marxism and economic liberalism are both rooted in a strictly materialistic and rationalistic worldview, which discounts the value of organically evolved cultures, practices and institutions, not to mention treating race as an irrelevancy.
Wrong. Anarcho-capitalism is one of the most beneficial systems for preserving and cultivating native cultures, and I can provide Somalia and the outskirts of colonial America as examples.


Ah well, this sounds to me as unrealistic as the speech of a hallucinating priest. Of course its obvious why they are called "Anarcho-Capitalists" or similar names by some.
Sure it's obvious. Because the logical outcome of the most pure expression of Austrian economics is the dissolution of all coercive mechanisms and the legitimation of the individual's right to provide his own security for his own property and life.


Interesting point which is in my opinion clearly motivated from a plutocratic point of view
Actually this point is motivated by logic alone, taking human action as the field of study. It is perfectly defensible, as well.


and even more interesting, certain states had the best employment rates with high wages, many worse with low ones.
Agrippa, care to point out the causes of this?


Well, if I wouldnt have people in my city which teach this shit, not even in the economic, but in the social and arts sciences as well, I would mean they just kidding, its a bad joke.
If I think about the fact that my university honours this idiots and the policy is going somewhat in their direction I can just puke!
Go ahead and puke if you'd like. The fact is that they're correct. If you own a forest of trees, and you want to cut them down and sell them as timber, it follows that you'd want get a sustainable business going, and so plant enough new trees to make up for the ones you cut down. Which makes for a sustainable ecology. Or am I wrong, somehow?


How can anybody with just any sense of reality, not corrupted as direct profiteer and even if one, can beliefe this total nonsense?!?

Because it's logically coherant?


Want to kill the state policy and give ALL the power to the multinational corporations and plutocracy or what?
What is this plutocracy and how has it caused damage? The Austrian school of economics would also have a gold standard restored, which would rip the guts out of the federal reserve, the source of Jewish power many lament. Organised elite Jewry (e.g. ADL, etc.) as well as black and other anti-white ethnic pressure groups are among those which would be deprived of Government influence. Come to think of it, whites would have a hell of a lot more social power than they do now. No Government funding of universities which currently advocate anti-white ideals, whites could establish their own universities and businesses which would be free of foreign ethnic influence in areas that can more directly bring about the dissolution of white communities (e.g. in the humanities, etc.). You'd be able to send your kids to schools where they won't be taught to hate their own people. You'd also be able to work at your job knowing that your tax isn't going to be pissed down the drain to support millions of foreign immigrants and welfare parasites who breed at your expense.



Hayek was not Jewish, but his whole system of thought was, at least after he visited the East Coast in 1923.
Before 1923 he was a Marxist, which is far more Jewish. Austrian economics lacks the ressentiment and messianism which propells Marxism.


Thats of course a good move because the free trade policy of the last decades is the key to our current situation.
Actually, I think the State has far more to do with it. Its domination of the education system has permitted special interest groups (read: Jewish elites, blacks, hispanics, Asiatics, Muslims etc.) to assert their views which are then passed on to entire generations. The vast majority of laws which can be considered anti-white would not have been passed in the United States.



Now that was the chance under Reagan in the US and Thatcher in GB, to bring up those Jews and their thoughts.
That would be the Chicago school, actually. And the Austrian school correctly predicted the problems that resulted. No one else did.


The only winning country is the absolute opposite of the new dogmas, China. They control their currency, their market, are quite restrictive, intervene ard use protectionism.
Their economy is a fraud, based on fake money and forced laws, fudged statistics and most of it is monopolised by hideously inefficient State Economic Enterprises which make products of atrocious quality not even their own people buy unless the Government tells them to. That, and they also have a hundred million unemployed and a rapidly collapsing rural economy.


If the West with a total different value of the currency and therefore nominal wages and other social, ecological etc. standards cannot win in a free trade competition in too many sectors.
Prove it.


Even for the developing countries the current system is a catastrophy because of the debts-policy (which is a problem for Europe as well) and the predatary capitalism style which doesnt build up too much but just use what can be used for maximum profits.
The entire world economy is based on fiat money. I actually agree with you here, and for that reason alone. That isn't Austrian economics, but it's applicable to the Chicago school.


I can just congratulate every country which leaves the path of the new economic orthodoxy.
I congratulate Somalia.

Telperion
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2004, 05:14 AM
Wrong. Anarcho-capitalism is one of the most beneficial systems for preserving and cultivating native cultures, and I can provide Somalia and the outskirts of colonial America as examples. It's interesting that I used the term "economic liberalism", but then you focus on the benefits of "anarcho-capitalism", and suggest as examples two countries which are or were in a pre-industrial stage of economic development.

The difference between "economic liberalism" and "anarcho-capitalism" as you and I seem to have used these terms respectively is that economic liberalism, as a contemporary worldview, implies acceptance of the proposition that state institutions and regimes play a necessary, and indeed crucial role in both facilitating and constraining market-based economic activity, while anarcho-capitalism presumably refers to a market-based economy that is effectively devoid of state institutions and regulatory frameworks.

Countries that have developed economies with a modern technological infrastructure, which utilise the corporation as the chief agent of high-scale economic activity, and which are enmeshed in the economic processes associated with globalization, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be referred to as anarcho-capitalist, since they currently require an immensely complex web of institutions and regulatory activity in order to function, and futhermore could not function outside of such an institutional and regulatory context (an assertion that I'd be happy to discuss further). They can fairly be described as adhering to economic liberalism, as defined above and as the term is popularly used (even though all these countries have welfare-state components to their economies that are arguably socialist in their intellectual origins).

Economic liberalism of this sort, or perhaps neoliberalism is a more precise word for it, is bound up with the project of globalization of economic activity, which is focused on maximizing economic growth and efficiency on a global scale as an end in itself, and treats other issues (including those of cultural preservation) as irrelevant except in so far as they affect that end. If mass immigration is of value to corporations that seek cheap labour, it is supported by those who favour this neoliberal agenda. If indigenous languages and cultures are threatened by the spread of a homogenizing global culture, that is seen as no more than a regrettable (?) and necessary sacrifice for continued economic growth and technological development. And so on; one can see numerous examples of these sorts of policy perspectives in The Economist, a publication that perhaps can fairly be viewed as the mainstream champion of neoliberal economic orthodoxy.

The common thread in varous neoliberal policy prescriptions is that they treat material objectives (economic growth and technological development) seemingly as ends in themselves, justified by the sum of the economic preferences or utilities of individual economic actors, while more intangible concerns with the preservation of races and of traditional cultures and practices simply aren't factored into the neoliberal worldview. And in this sense there is a point of comparison to Marxism, which is also a materialistic worldview, although one with very different modes of analysis and substantive conclusions.

So, you may be right about the compatibility of anarcho-capitalism and preservationism, but I would argue that claim seems of little relevance to the problems of contemporary western countries, with developed, technologically sophisticated economies, that find themselves enmeshed in the web of neoliberalism and globalization, and associated policies that are damaging to the preservation of traditional cultures and practices. I would suggest that if you're going to advocate anarcho-capitalism as a mode of economic organization compatible with preservationism, then you should also touch on the issue of how or whether such an economic system is compatible with an industrial economy, and whether people might be forced to make trade-offs between material well-being and racial, cultural and spiritual preservationism.

Jack
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2004, 11:19 AM
It's interesting that I used the term "economic liberalism", but then you focus on the benefits of "anarcho-capitalism", and suggest as examples two countries which are or were in a pre-industrial stage of economic development.

The difference between "economic liberalism" and "anarcho-capitalism" as you and I seem to have used these terms respectively is that economic liberalism, as a contemporary worldview, implies acceptance of the proposition that state institutions and regimes play a necessary, and indeed crucial role in both facilitating and constraining market-based economic activity, while anarcho-capitalism presumably refers to a market-based economy that is effectively devoid of state institutions and regulatory frameworks.This is basically the difference between the Chicago school and the Austrian school. The Chicago school has no objections in principle to State intervention in the economy, while the Austrian school is purist capitalism.


Countries that have developed economies with a modern technological infrastructure, which utilise the corporation as the chief agent of high-scale economic activity, and which are enmeshed in the economic processes associated with globalization, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be referred to as anarcho-capitalist, since they currently require an immensely complex web of institutions and regulatory activity in order to function, and futhermore could not function outside of such an institutional and regulatory context (an assertion that I'd be happy to discuss further). They can fairly be described as adhering to economic liberalism, as defined above and as the term is popularly used (even though all these countries have welfare-state components to their economies that are arguably socialist in their intellectual origins).I can agree with this. I wouldn't call these countries 'socialist', but rather as mixed economy.


Economic liberalism of this sort, or perhaps neoliberalism is a more precise word for it, is bound up with the project of globalization of economic activity, which is focused on maximizing economic growth and efficiency on a global scale as an end in itself, and treats other issues (including those of cultural preservation) as irrelevant except in so far as they affect that end. If mass immigration is of value to corporations that seek cheap labour, it is supported by those who favour this neoliberal agenda.True. And this is where Anarcho-Capitalism can solve the 'problem' as we see it (globalists won't see a problem though). The State, with its welfare administrations, actively thieves resources from the population over which it has power, and redistributes in whatever way it sees fit. Neither the State (as an organisation with a monopoly of force over a section of territory) nor a welfare administration based on tax would exist in an Anarcho-Capitalist society. However, people would be free to organise themselves into organisations to protect their own property, over which they can define their own laws. Which means trespasses can be executed.


If indigenous languages and cultures are threatened by the spread of a homogenizing global culture, that is seen as no more than a regrettable (?) and necessary sacrifice for continued economic growth and technological development. And so on; one can see numerous examples of these sorts of policy perspectives in The Economist, a publication that perhaps can fairly be viewed as the mainstream champion of neoliberal economic orthodoxy. Sure. In an Anarcho-Capitalist society, without a centralised authority to impose its world-view on its subject populations, interest groups would be free to use advertising and other forms of influence to bring about a strong group-consciousness among their own ethnic groups. This would also have economic and political ramifications as well. Whites can be influenced to cease buying products from businesses owned by racial foreigners.


The common thread in varous neoliberal policy prescriptions is that they treat material objectives (economic growth and technological development) seemingly as ends in themselves, justified by the sum of the economic preferences or utilities of individual economic actors, while more intangible concerns with the preservation of races and of traditional cultures and practices simply aren't factored into the neoliberal worldview.Economics generally discusses economics, not the preservation of cultures. Its field of study is production, trade and utilisation of goods, centering primarily on the distinction between useless and useful. Austrian economics leaves politics - self-identity and the distinction between friend and enemy - an open field free of the State. This is where free association (and disassociation), free of the State, can be used to protect and proliferate Germanic (and European) racial, cultural and spiritual existence.


And in this sense there is a point of comparison to Marxism, which is also a materialistic worldview, although one with very different modes of analysis and substantive conclusions.The question is, what do you mean by materialism. The difference between Marxism and Austrian economics is that Marxism fails in relation to its goal.


So, you may be right about the compatibility of anarcho-capitalism and preservationism, but I would argue that claim seems of little relevance to the problems of contemporary western countries, with developed, technologically sophisticated economies, that find themselves enmeshed in the web of neoliberalism and globalization, and associated policies that are damaging to the preservation of traditional cultures and practices. I would suggest that if you're going to advocate anarcho-capitalism as a mode of economic organization compatible with preservationism, then you should also touch on the issue of how or whether such an economic system is compatible with an industrial economy, and whether people might be forced to make trade-offs between material well-being and racial, cultural and spiritual preservationism.Within Anarcho-Capitalism no one is forced to do anything. People are free to starve if they so wish ;) Case example: if Minarchism (i.e. minimal Government) was reinstituted in the United States, the welfare system and the education system would cease to exist. Undoubtably blacks and hispanics would riot by the millions. Production in arms industries, primarily owned and controlled by whites, would increase exponentially, and if blacks and hispanics rioted against whites, there would be no Government to arrest whites if they shot back. Whites would also cease to be taxed, which would facilitate a rise in birth rates. If rural white America got pissed off enough at the cosmopolitan city occupants, they could easily starve the cities in which blacks and/or hispanics are the overwhelming majority. If whites applied economic pressure (e.g. boycott) against corporations in America, they could build up their own businesses, their own media, their own education systems, and the black and hispanic economies may very well collapse. Whites could then buy back land all across America (alternatively, homesteading property owned by black criminals who've been killed in the mean time) and have blacks voluntarily deported and hispanics thrown back into Mexico. It's possible. This could easily happen in an industrial society, and there is nothing to say it can't. The State, at present, both sustains a massive underclass of otherwise unemployed people (including 'public servents', i.e. parasites) as well as unsustainable corporations. Both problems can be solved.

Agrippa
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2004, 04:30 PM
Now, what exactly does this mean? Austrian economics is built on praxeology, i.e. the logic of action - ends and means, value and utility. I see nothing particularly 'Jewish' about this.

The Jewish character is visible in the spirit of the grocer - for a grocer this way of living and thinking might be logical and there is no other alternative, for anybody else, anybody with a higher moral it isnt.
Anyhow, its not about Jewish or not alone, if thats important anyway, its the greedy, materialistic, just profit-oriented view on the world.

"Logic of action" - if its logical to cheat, to lie, to be greedy and to be destructive just for power and profit, ok, if you think humans are like that and should be like that, than yes...



Why do you prefer the Keynesian answers? Is it because you believe they're 'correct', or because Keynes was a gentile European (also a homosexual, but that's something else)? Does Keynes being a gentile European have a causal effect on whether or not his economics is correct? Is Mises necessarily wrong because he's of Jewish extraction?

No, if Keynes would be Jew and Mises a perfect "Aryan" or whatever, I would see it the same way. As you probably know, for this test, I just read the alternatives and decided after my moral worldview, my conviction and deep believe and because of what I know about those subjects.
As I said, there were probably 2 answers I answered in a "Austrian" way too.

Whats really wrong about this is not the intrinsic logic, but the premises, mainly about the human character and social structures, and about the goals of society or humanity at all.
This way of looking at the world is deeply Jewish, individualistic in the most negative (egomaniacal) way and totally wrong.

They are like preachers, partly naive, partly hypocritical, and always used by the plutocracy.
That some of their theoretical assumption are not that wrong is right, yes, but how they interpret them and for what goals is typical, typically for the Neoliberalism (is not classical Liberalism, more about that later) and typically Jewish.


Better than that 'German' school of economics known as Marxism.

I dont want to defent theoretical Marxism, but seriously, do you really think what the "Austrian" school said is more logical than theoretical economic Marxism?


Actually, Marxism is thoroughly rooted in Jewish messianism and ressentiment, which is more characteristic of Jews than anything else, including 'greed... money and profit'.

You never read anything from Marx did you? Anyway, its the enemy of greed, money and profit in the end.
But again, I'm no Marxist, Marxism, especially dogmatic Marxism is wrong, I'm of course a strong Antimarxist, but comparing those two worldviews (Austrian and Marxism) you see the grocer spirit in the first, the shame for it in the second.
Not to forget that Hayek, Mises and the other creatures of the "Austrian school" are messianic too, when they are hypocritical about the "the market will solve everything, private property is moralic" idiocy too.
They promise in their naive way a "better world of total individual freedom and the rule of the free market economy..."

Nah, just look what they write about education, health care, ecological problems, social problems, demographic ones etc...its all partly naive, partly hypocritical bullshit, no matter how good there utility theories might be, if they would know even something about public utility, there relative intelligence might be much more useful.


You're perfectly correct. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton etc. were all Jews. So were the writers of the Magna Carta which defended the rights of individual Englishmen. The libetarian nature of ancient Germanic society also reeks of Jewishness. The anarchist nature of ancient Ireland is about as Jewish as you can get. No, really, Agrippa: What sort of rubbish are you going to spout out next?

They were not Jewish, but another question, were they Christian in the classical sense, were they European in the classical sense? Calvinism was some sort of grocer spirit as well, its obvious if you compare (especially Anglocalvinism) with Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Lutheran believes.
The others know the bigger structures and goals as well, Jews know (in their classical orthodox thinking) just themselves as individuals and tribe, Anglocalvinists oftentimes themselves only...at least more often than other Europeans.
America is build up on this falsity.

Anyway, I dont say everybody who thinks like that is Jewish or thinks Jewish, the point is, I dont dislike (certain) Jews because of the "Jewishness", neither do I hate some ideologies because of their Jewish background, but I hate destructive, greedy and futile people and ideologies no matter who brought it up.

If it would be a perfect Corded Nordid German, I would say his race is great, his children might have potential, but he is an enemy no matter what.
Because in the end this ideology harms his own people, his own tribe, probably even his own children, if he cant recognize it by himself, we must help him in one or another way to understand it.



Classical liberalism is a product solely of whites, while some individual Jews worked on building up the economic defense of it. Mises is a neo-Kantian: Kant was a Nordic white. Rothbard, who is a neo-Aristotelian, bases his ethics on Aquinas, who was a Nordic, Catholic European. Can you actually defeat their arguments or are you going to continue throwing ad-hominems around?

There are alway two elements in a conviction, theory or ideology. First is the question if its logical, if the premises are right. Thats not true for the Austrian school, they have ill premises about the human nature, social structures and ecological and general biological needs.

Second and of great importance as well is the personality, the character of the people who think that way. That is something about what you can accept. F.e. can you accept certain human differences and certain biological determinations, religious believes etc...



Ah, yes. Resentment against the English world is something that pervades hated of the West amongst a significant section of continental Europeans, particularly the Germans and the French. Probably because we're more sucessful than you.

Ah yes, more successful? ;)

Seriously if America would leave continental Europe alone, if America would exist on their continent, without intervening all over the world and in Europe all the time, I would be very, very happy.
America could live its liberal nightmare, with Nigger music, bastardization, Jewish control, the first maxime of greed and profit, cities of homosexuals, religious retards, etc...everything fine with me, I would probably spit on it and would suggest every decent human being to leave this country, but ok, thats it.

But what the problem is, with these American Neoliberals (probably more "Austrian school", names like Soros) and "right wing" Neoliberals or Neoconservatives (probably more associated with "Chikago school", names like Friedman and Wolfowitz) that they spread their poison all over the world and dont accept anybody who wants to live in an alternative.

Not to forget, again typical for the Jewish character, a certain egalitarian, "tolerant" or even pluralistic view dominates in both (first more thats clear) sides of this neoliberal experiment. In so far they accepted even Marxistic and Neomarxistic point of views about general discrimination, sexual orientation, sexual relations, racial differences, cultural turn etc...



Oh, so you don't see mass theft and murder as 'inhumaneness', while you consider consensual production and trade, mutual agreement and respect for individuals as 'destruction and crime'?

Yes, because you must, like in Marxism, distinguish dreams, propaganda and theory from the REAL RESULTS!

And like I said, they are totally wrong about the human nature, social structures and biological needs.

It probably sounds "nice" at first, but if you think about it, it means that greedy sociopaths, plutocrats will get much more power and will form a new, somewhat even totalitarian, but for sure corrupt, form of society and state.

How long would the poor, the honest, the less brutal ones would be free to decide in a MODERN CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY? And who would dominate such a society? Mainly those who dominate already the United States, corrupt Jews and Anglocalvinists...

To make this real, free and egalitarian, you must start and point zero which means at least no multinational corporatives, no stock market, no interests etc. But of coure thats not what they want, they want a state without non-capitalist policy which means that all means of power will be in the hands of the plutocrats sooner or later...maybe sooner because before they are not in power such a idiocy will for sure dominate no society.



See, the problem is, we're not debating the ethics of capitalism, which I can defend more than well enough. What we're debating is the truth-legitimacy of their economic model, which as far as I can see is bulletproof, while that of Keynes is not.

Well, like I said, they make in certain parts good theoretical approaches, but its about the goals the describe, the intrinsic logic like I explained.
Capitalism is just a modern form of economy, the question is how you define higher goals and justify possible interventions. The invisible hand is nonsence, the free market is no god, nothing must get better just because you "let it run...", only if you know who will take take over the control yet and you are a profiteer or too naive to see it.



Wrong. Anarcho-capitalism is one of the most beneficial systems for preserving and cultivating native cultures, and I can provide Somalia and the outskirts of colonial America as examples.

Well, you are a dreamer, I can respect that, but if the "Austrian school" would ever come in charge (I doubt that anyway) the real results would just be terrible...



Sure it's obvious. Because the logical outcome of the most pure expression of Austrian economics is the dissolution of all coercive mechanisms and the legitimation of the individual's right to provide his own security for his own property and life.

Right, the strongest survive, or better the richest huh? But in the modern context such structures always lead to contraselection and social destruction and nothing else.

Again, nice dream but totally wrong.


Actually this point is motivated by logic alone, taking human action as the field of study. It is perfectly defensible, as well.

Well, some people can accept the lowest parts of human nature, the weakest characteristics, there degenerated sprouts used by greedy people. Maybe they can even accept to what a "freedom" of this failures leads to, namely the racial extinction of Europeans, total exploitation of masses, total destruction of the natural ressources and ecological base of human life and finally, probably the extinction and/or total degeneracy of our species, but I cant, and because I cant, I dont accept human weaknesses used by greedy grocers "as the human nature".



Agrippa, care to point out the causes of this?

A better social organization and general policy, a technological advantage and a certain amount of protectionism.

You could also say in the most simple way: An utilitaristic policy of the state rather than in the interests of the plutocracy.



Go ahead and puke if you'd like. The fact is that they're correct. If you own a forest of trees, and you want to cut them down and sell them as timber, it follows that you'd want get a sustainable business going, and so plant enough new trees to make up for the ones you cut down. Which makes for a sustainable ecology. Or am I wrong, somehow?

You are wrong if you think that every owner thinks long-term oriented, because they arent, especially not nowadays.
Its the free market and financial services sector which lead to short time policies of both the state and the people - the owners as well.

Even more important, you cant always make money with the protection, but many times with the destruction of natural ressources, which means, if you have a greedy sociopath, and there will always be one, with enough money this person might be a threat. Its the duty of the community, i.e. the state to intervene and to correct things, no matter if he is the owner or not.

The policy of the state should be long-term oriented, whereas the policy of individuals (can be) short-term oriented as well.
Of course if looking at the USA you dont see a need for the state, because of what this construct really lacks, maybe even from the beginning, is any kind of a useful long term policy for its own people.
But to judge about the state from that point of view, from that degenerated form of a state is wrong.



Because it's logically coherant?

Give me a good general and REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE, probably we can discuss about details.


What is this plutocracy and how has it caused damage? The Austrian school of economics would also have a gold standard restored, which would rip the guts out of the federal reserve, the source of Jewish power many lament. Organised elite Jewry (e.g. ADL, etc.) as well as black and other anti-white ethnic pressure groups are among those which would be deprived of Government influence. Come to think of it, whites would have a hell of a lot more social power than they do now.

Because they are for one good action I can approve, or have certain theoretical approaches which are scientifically correct, I'm no apologist of the "Austrian School", why are you?
As I said, you can probably learn from them, but their general approach is just wrong. Just because some things in the Tora are right, you dont want to convert to Judaism either or won't you?

And even more important, if you would be right, the power "of more whites" means what? Means that liberal individuals can get read of "annoying" taxes, or can exploit certain groups of the population, including many whites, better, but without getting much more children or getting more common sense oriented, it will be a "great victory" and all dreams will come true...


No Government funding of universities which currently advocate anti-white ideals, whites could establish their own universities and businesses which would be free of foreign ethnic influence in areas that can more directly bring about the dissolution of white communities (e.g. in the humanities, etc.). You'd be able to send your kids to schools where they won't be taught to hate their own people. You'd also be able to work at your job knowing that your tax isn't going to be pissed down the drain to support millions of foreign immigrants and welfare parasites who breed at your expense.

But who will control all those people? The multinational corporations and plutocrats - corrupted Jews and Anglocalvinists.

What will that change significantly? It will bring up more social inequality and working poor, probably even more families (including "middle class" whites) which cannot afford more than one child if etc...

Nothing I want, nothing which will solve anything of greater importance. You might get rid of some "Leftists" that way, but thats it.
Anyway, its no classic Liberalism, and what both the Chikago and the Austrian school presents is some sort of a economic and social "Manchester Liberalism" with neomarxistic views on individuals, minorities and the society as a whole.
Its the combination of the worst things of the last 2 centuries.



Before 1923 he was a Marxist, which is far more Jewish. Austrian economics lacks the ressentiment and messianism which propells Marxism.

Like I explained and you can detect if you read him carefully, especially what he writes about education and ecological problems, he has some sort of naive messianism.
The combination of what I described above (negative elements of Liberalism and Marxism) is the result of people like him, mainly with a Jewish background, which decided to leave the path of Marxism and defend their pluralistic, messianic and multicultural convictions inside the capitalistic western model.



Actually, I think the State has far more to do with it. Its domination of the education system has permitted special interest groups (read: Jewish elites, blacks, hispanics, Asiatics, Muslims etc.) to assert their views which are then passed on to entire generations. The vast majority of laws which can be considered anti-white would not have been passed in the United States.

Aha, well, interesting view on this economic theories but again, that might be your interpretation, but reality refutes it.

Giving more power to the stock market, to form a totally free market and crippling the state (or let him control by plutocrats and multinational corporations) means maybe that some of the minority laws would fall, but so would the last laws and rules which give some sort of protection to the Western populations.

What you said means to try to defeat one evil with even a greater one, which is and never was a good plan at any time.



Their economy is a fraud, based on fake money and forced laws, fudged statistics and most of it is monopolised by hideously inefficient State Economic Enterprises which make products of atrocious quality not even their own people buy unless the Government tells them to. That, and they also have a hundred million unemployed and a rapidly collapsing rural economy.

Ok, but probably the main difference is, the "Chikago boys" already "tested" their theories, the "Austrians" not. If they would on a broad base, and where ever they influenced some state policies, the results would be catastrophic as well...

Even more important, the "Austrian School" seems to be some sort of mask for the Chikago imo, they always quote the "Austrians" if they want to destroy social structures, attack nations for there protectionism etc, but if its about their own plutocratic clientele, if its about the real policy of the state, they just quote "Chikago" orthodoxy.

I even thought about how real this approach of manic preachers is anyway, because most of the time its nothing but a mask for plutocratic state intervention.


Prove it.

Where do you live? Just look out of the window or go in any bigger industrial city in the West...


I congratulate Somalia.

Oh yes? Well...


Wrong. Anarcho-capitalism is one of the most beneficial systems for preserving and cultivating native cultures, and I can provide Somalia and the outskirts of colonial America as examples.

------


Whites can be influenced to cease buying products from businesses owned by racial foreigners.

The only real freedom is the freedom of choice. How many people would have a free choice in an absolute predatory capitalism? How would they be influenced by the corporations, the media etc...

What you mean can only work, if at all, on a regional and rural base, its not possible or at least it will bring only negative results in a modern (post-) industrial culture.

Stríbog
Thursday, December 23rd, 2004, 12:00 AM
Ah, yes. Resentment against the English world is something that pervades hated of the West amongst a significant section of continental Europeans, particularly the Germans and the French. Probably because we're more sucessful than you.

You and others took offense at things I said about Ireland, but at least I never sided with England. When did you become English?

The English 'success' that is resented is the 'success' of waging international wars for profit and political power, and the worship of the almighty Pound. The occupation of Ireland, the Opium Wars, the Crimean War, the Boer War, World War I, and World War II are all 'proud achievements' to an English nationalist because they brought profit, regardless of the human cost.The Anglo spirit and the Jewish spirit have inextricably intertwined for over 150 years, perhaps even since Cromwell invited God's People back (incidentally, a perfect illustration of the Calvinist-Jewish spirit to which Agrippa referred). Calvinists display many Jewish traits: belief that God specially selected them; belief that earthly wealth, however gained, is their rightful reward for this status; belief that money-making is a divinely sanctioned vocation.

England is also resented for her arrogation of the title of "world civilization bearer" when in fact, England can only offer a few decent authors (no more than any other European country) amidst a sea of dry, bland society writers; insipid, unoriginal art; and no significant classical music to speak of. At best, England can match, but not exceed, other European countries in the literary arena, and is quite the inferior of many other European nations in art and music. France, Germany, and Italy have all contributed at least as much as Britain.

Renwein
Thursday, December 23rd, 2004, 01:36 AM
England is also resented for her arrogation of the title of "world civilization bearer" when in fact, England can only offer a few decent authors (no more than any other European country) amidst a sea of dry, bland society writers; insipid, unoriginal art; and no significant classical music to speak of. At best, England can match, but not exceed, other European countries in the literary arena, and is quite the inferior of many other European nations in art and music. France, Germany, and Italy have all contributed at least as much as Britain.

Nothing here to do with my (lack of) economic knowledge here, or trying to sound like some kind of jingoist because really I find a lot of the 'british pride' is embarrassing, or that the resentment isn't justified, but 'only a few good authors' and 'at best match' other european countries in literature? c'mon now ...! where do we stand 'at worst' then? :D even going as far as saying britain has the "best"/most influential literature tradition in europe, (e.g. having the large(st?) role in making the modern novel...) isn't such a controversial claim, although obviously many people could disagree for various not-invalid reasons, but I think you're being unfair there ;)

As for music, in medieval and renaissance times British music was pretty significant, the singers were regarded as the best in europe (thanks to the choral tradition) and the luthiers and lutenists and associated composers were regarded as among the best... but because notation was poorly developed not much early music surives, also only one choirbook survives thanks to Henry VIII's acts on the churches ;), and pretty much all music was related to churches in europe, certainly any music that would be notated (as opposed to folk musics, which only later very strongly influenced European composers at the end of the 1800's, most famously Bartok (hungarian), by that time there were 'significant' British composers appearing again, Vaughan Williams being the not-unreknowned English 'version'[and a relative of Darwin :D])... there was a bit of a dearth inbetween ;) for whatever reason, but only a few countries (or a small region) really produced a great many of classical composers, how many can you name who are French, Scandinavian, Spanish etc? Already by the time of Debussy the classical era was long gone and British music was developing strongly again, in the last century Britain has again been at the forefront of arts & music (both in 'art' musics and popular forms), maybe more then any one other european nation (or 'at best matching' them :P)... no need to be so harsh because of the smug attitudes of some ! :)

Agrippa
Thursday, December 23rd, 2004, 12:01 PM
The English catastrophy began with the Norman invasion, but getting worse over time. Because the upper class and the common people were not, and never get one folk...
So they always saw the common people as a material, a material like some Negroe slaves... (especially visible when you look how they treat the Scots and Irish)

Later the bourgois get up to the power as well and get the same level as the aristocracy (Magna Charta - had positive effects as well, but still...), that was the 2nd fault, especially because they dont took the blood & honour spirit of the classical European aristocracy too serious, in fact they "educated" the aristocracy which get more influenced by the grocer spirit as well.
Common sense was most of the time something they wanted from the low classes, but they had no public utility feeling by themselves, at least no strong one...

Most social and national movements were made up by foreigners or in other countries, England had not too much of it, at least a real feeling for the corruption of the system didnt came up.

The main problem was that, not like in Germany and some other countries, the aristocracy gave the best to the bourgeois, but it was the other way around. F.e. in Prussia the aristocratic influence on the bourgeois was great and successful, but in England the aristocracy turned themselves into greedy bourgeois.
So the whole country, or better the upper class, get this grocer spirit much more than most other European nations - because there was nothing strong against it like in other countries (free (of bourgeois influence) church, real aristocratic spirit, ethnic or clan identification etc.)

But still the English tried to defend themselves to against the extremes of the movement, espressed in hypocrisy, extreme individualism with a tendency toward egomania, bigotry, religious bourgeois fanatism and shameless greed and profit orientation.
This movement used, not by chance of course, the Calvinistic theories to get through with their "justified requirements", they lived their highly superficial ideas.
As I said the English defended themselves, so they had to go, they fled...and you know where this "pilgrim fathers" were going to...

So this uneuropean and corrupted spirit, though having some positive sides as well, spread itself over Northern America.
Extreme individualism can never be racist by the way, thats an antagonism in itself, it can be some sort of "liberal social darwinism" in the most antisocial way, but thats it, at least if its about some sort of rational and structured racialism.

Well, over the centuries and with the influence of the Jewish people most of the positive features of this "counter culture" to classical Europe perished and the most negative effects grew into giants.

The way of the "Austrian school" is just another messianic worldview of the radical individualism and the corrupted grocer spirit like the Anglocalvinism of the American upper classes at least since the 1960's, but to a great extend long before and of many Jews as well.

If it would be a Jewish problem only, it would have been easy to solve, the European which think the same way or even worse (Jews usually dont forget who they are and what their duty is for their people, Anglocalvinists forgot that a way to often) are an even greater threat to European communities and their own race.

Jack
Thursday, December 23rd, 2004, 01:04 PM
The Jewish character is visible in the spirit of the grocer - Good to see you're calling the elderly Polish couple who lived down the street and own a grocer's store 'Jews'. Do you hear that everyone? If you work honestly to improve your own lot you're a 'Jew' according to Agrippa.


for a grocer this way of living and thinking might be logical and there is no other alternative, for anybody else, anybody with a higher moral it isnt.Can you tell me how this bullshit (and it is) is relevant to Austrian economics? How about you go read Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises or Man, Economy and the State by Murray Rothbard first? Let me guess: you won't, because 'they're Jews'. Which is nothing more than a cheap cop-out because you know you're spouting lies and empty slander at two of America's best advocates of liberty and individual sovereignty.


Anyhow, its not about Jewish or not alone, if thats important anyway, its the greedy, materialistic, just profit-oriented view on the world.Ok. So we have a million ad hominems but not a single logical refutation of Austrian economics.


"Logic of action" - if its logical to cheat, to lie, to be greedy and to be destructive just for power and profit, ok, if you think humans are like that and should be like that, than yes...LOL. Tell me ANYWHERE where theft, contract breaking or lies is advocated by the Austrian school of economics. Really. I want page references to either Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises or Man, Economy and the State by Murray Rothbard. Please, really. Go through and find me excerpts from either or both books. You won't find it.


No, if Keynes would be Jew and Mises a perfect "Aryan" or whatever, I would see it the same way. As you probably know, for this test, I just read the alternatives and decided after my moral worldview, my conviction and deep believe and because of what I know about those subjects.
As I said, there were probably 2 answers I answered in a "Austrian" way too.What moral worldview? Moral cannibalism?


Whats really wrong about this is not the intrinsic logic, but the premises, mainly about the human character and social structures, and about the goals of society or humanity at all.

Tell me what's incorrect about their premises of 'human character'. That humans make decisions and have goals? LOL. It's self evident FACT.


This way of looking at the world is deeply Jewish, individualistic in the most negative (egomaniacal) way and totally wrong.Hardly.


They are like preachers, partly naive, partly hypocritical, and always used by the plutocracy.And what is this 'plutocracy', Agrippa? Can you explain what it is, its interests, and its negative effects on society? Or is this just empty rhetoric like everything else you've spewed out in the post I'm quoting right now?


That some of their theoretical assumption are not that wrong is right, yes, but how they interpret them and for what goals is typical, typically for the Neoliberalism (is not classical Liberalism, more about that later) and typically Jewish.What a load of crap. Austrian economics is classical liberalism.


I dont want to defent theoretical Marxism, but seriously, do you really think what the "Austrian" school said is more logical than theoretical economic Marxism?Hell yes. Do you want to argue Marxism vs Austrian economics? I'll take the theory of marginal utility and you can take the labour theory of value. I'm ready right now if you'd like.


You never read anything from Marx did you? Anyway, its the enemy of greed, money and profit in the end.Read anything by Marx? I've read the Communist Manifesto and half of the first volume of Das Kapital. It is empty bullshit. Its economics have been refuted by both the Chicago and the Austrian schools (no serious economist follows the labour theory of value), its sociology was overthrown by Max Weber, and the 1917 Russian Revolution is a refutation of Marxism itself.


But again, I'm no Marxist, Marxism, especially dogmatic Marxism is wrong, I'm of course a strong Antimarxist, but comparing those two worldviews (Austrian and Marxism) you see the grocer spirit in the first, the shame for it in the second.I see nothing by greed of the unworthy in Marxism, and I see integrity and pride in Austrian economics.


Not to forget that Hayek, Mises and the other creatures of the "Austrian school" are messianic too, when they are hypocritical about the "the market will solve everything, private property is moralic" idiocy too.
They promise in their naive way a "better world of total individual freedom and the rule of the free market economy..."Tell me - do you honestly think free-trade capitalism, which existed on the outskirts of colonial America and exist in Somalia right now, honestly compares to the Chekist death squads and the Gulag Archipegalo of Soviet Russia, the killing fields of Pol Pot or mass starvation of Zimbabwe? That's where your envy and greed of the underclass, as encouraged by Marxism, takes you.


Nah, just look what they write about education, health care, ecological problems, social problems, demographic ones etc...its all partly naive, partly hypocritical bullshit, no matter how good there utility theories might be, if they would know even something about public utility, there relative intelligence might be much more useful.[/quoe]

Can you elaborate on this? Seriously. Because I honestly believe this is crap just like everything else I've so far quoted in your post.

[quote]They were not Jewish, but another question, were they Christian in the classical sense, were they European in the classical sense? Calvinism was some sort of grocer spirit as well, its obvious if you compare (especially Anglocalvinism) with Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Lutheran believes.LOL. Anglocalvinism. Which is what? Save your money and invest it so you can give more away? Have you read Protestantism and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber?


The others know the bigger structures and goals as well, Jews know (in their classical orthodox thinking) just themselves as individuals and tribe, Anglocalvinists oftentimes themselves only...at least more often than other Europeans.Only themselves? That's interesting. Because it was the Catholic Spaniards that interbred with the black slaves and the natives in their colonies in the Americas, while these 'individualist, Calvinist' Anglo-Americans enforced strict slavery and segregation in relation to the blacks, and had no moral qualms with annihilating the red Indians.


America is build up on this falsity.LOL, what?


Anyway, I dont say everybody who thinks like that is Jewish or thinks Jewish, the point is, I dont dislike (certain) Jews because of the "Jewishness", neither do I hate some ideologies because of their Jewish background, but I hate destructive, greedy and futile people and ideologies no matter who brought it up.What is 'this Jewishness'? The will to truth and integrity?


If it would be a perfect Corded Nordid German, I would say his race is great, his children might have potential, but he is an enemy no matter what.Enemy for what? For advocating liberty and prosperity and studying the means by which this can be achieved?


Because in the end this ideology harms his own people, his own tribe, probably even his own children, if he cant recognize it by himself, we must help him in one or another way to understand it.Not really. The decline of America pretty much began with massive state intervention against the will of the populace.


There are alway two elements in a conviction, theory or ideology. First is the question if its logical, if the premises are right. Thats not true for the Austrian school, they have ill premises about the human nature, social structures and ecological and general biological needs.You quite plainly know nothing about the premises of Austrian economics, which rests effectively on the fact that man acts to attain goals. Why don't you read some Austrian economics yourself?


Second and of great importance as well is the personality, the character of the people who think that way. That is something about what you can accept. F.e. can accept certain human differences and certain biological determinations, religious believes etc...Thes human differences do not invalid Austrian economics. I've come to the conclusion you don't know what you're talking about. I believe this will be confirmed further throughout your post.


Ah yes, more successful? ;)Honestly, are the voters of America responsible for Europe's self-dissolution?


Seriously if you would leave continental Europe alone, if America would exist on their continent without intervene all over the world and in Europe all the time I would be very, very happy.America intervened in world war 2 to stop Adolf Hitler siezing control of all Europe. Both America and Britain had no objections to Germany incorporating German populations living under the laws of countries (e.g. in Austria, Czeckoslovakia, etc.), but they intervened precisely because of Adolf Hitler's national chauvinism which displayed itself in the annexation of the rest of Czeckoslovakia. Hitler claimed to desire national self determination for the German populations in Europe by incorporating them into his largely monoethnic state (with the exception of the Jews who still lived there) - a principle supported by the British and the Americans - but then turned around and violated it.


America could live its liberal nightmare, with Nigger music, bastardization, Jewish control, the first maxime of greed and profit, cities of homosexuals, religious retards, etc...everything fine with me, I would probably spit on it and would suggest every decent human being to leave this country, but ok, thats it.There is absolutely nothing stopping Europeans from instituting cultural protectionism. American voters did not force the Netherlands to accept gay parades and Muslim immigrants. As much as you'd like to bitch about McDonalds, the fact is that Europeans still eat it, which keeps McDonalds franchises in Europe in business. And those McDonalds franchises are also owned by Europeans.


But what the problem is, with these American Neoliberals (probably more "Austrian school", names like Soros) and "right wing" Neoliberals or Neoconservatives (probably more associated with "Chikago school", names like Mises and Wolfowitz) that they spread their poison all over the world and dont accept anybody who wants to live in an alternative.LOL. Both Mises and Rothbard would have (if they weren't dead) opposed the Iraq war, the welfare state, intervention in other countries' wars and internal affairs.


Not to forget, again typical for the Jewish character, a certain egalitarian, "tolerant" or even pluralistic view dominates in both (first more thats clear) sides of this neoliberal experiment. In so far they accepted even Marxistic and Neomarxistic point of views about general discrimination, sexual orientation, sexual relations, racial differences, cultural turn etc...LOL, what? Austrian school economics leaves freedom of choice, association, freedom to bear arms, rights to property, all to the individual. If you don't want to work with faggots, get another job. If you don't want Turks moving into your country, start a propaganda campaign to make everyone in your country agree with you. If you don't want Muslims getting away with rioting and throwing bricks through your windows, go ahead and shoot them when they do. No follower of the Austrian school of economics will stop you.


Yes, because you must, like in Marxism, distinguish dreams, propaganda and theory from the REAL RESULTS!Austrian economics provided the means to predict the 1930's great depression, the Asian economic crisis and the stagflation of the 1980s'.


And like I said, they are totally wrong about the human nature, social structures and biological needs.Oh, and how is that? Prove what you think they're about by referring to texts written by Austrian economists, and then demonstrate how they're wrong.


It probably sounds "nice" at first, but if you think about it, it means that greedy sociopaths, plutocrats will get much more power and will form a new, somewhat even totalitarian, but for sure corrupt, form of society and state.
Provide evidence. Austrian economics denies the need or desire for the State absolutely.


How long would the poor, the honest, the less brutal ones would be free to decide in a MODERN CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY? And who would dominate such a society? Mainly those who dominate already the United States, corrupt Jews and Anglocalvinists...Actually, the corrupt Jews would lose their businesses pretty damn quick because they wouldn't be protected by Government policy. We live in a mixed economy, by the way, not in a free market society.


To make this real, free and egalitarian, you must start and point zero which means at least no multinational corporatives, no stock market, no interests etc.Really? Why is that? And what's wrong with stock markets and interest? Do you know what the purpose, reason and service of interest is?


But of coure thats not what they want, they want a state without non-capitalist policy which means that all means of power will be in the hands of the plutocrats sooner or later...What plutocrats? And how will they control 'all means of power'?


maybe sooner because before they are not in power such a idiocy will for sure dominate no society.Prove it.



Well, like I said, they make in certain parts good theoretical approaches, but its about the goals the describe, the intrinsic logic like I explained.You haven't given any explanation, only empty rhetoric and slander.


Capitalism is just a modern form of economy, the question is how you define higher goals and justify possible interventions.Higher goals are decided by the individual and the action


The invisible hand is nonsence, the free market is no god, nothing must get better just because you "let it run...", only if you know who will take take over the control yet and you are a profiteer or too naive to see it.'Let it run'? Things will get better if people cease being parasites and start working for everything they own, cease defrauding others and stop relying on brute force like savages do and work to improve their lives.


Well, you are a dreamer, I can respect that, but if the "Austrian school" would ever come in charge (I doubt that anyway) the real results would just be terrible...Prove it.


Right, the strongest survive, or better the richest huh? But in the modern context such structures always lead to contraselection and social destruction and nothing else.Bullshit. The laziest and most degenerate multiply exponentially while the intelligent and hard working decrease over time under the current system.


Again, nice dream but totally wrong.How so?


Well, some people can accept the lowest parts of human nature, the weakest characteristics, there degenerated sprouts used by greedy people.Define this 'greed'. There is nothing wrong with pursuing one's own interests, what is wrong according to those who have written on capitalist ethics, is being a parasite or a thug and demanding the product of the work of others.


Maybe they can even accept to what a "freedom" of this failures leads to, namely the racial extinction of Europeans, total exploitation of masses, total destruction of the natural ressources and ecological base of human lifeActually, you can blame this on the State. Taxation, coercing the children of whites into education systems which spout anti-white ideals, importing and discounting the lifestyles of degenerates (i.e. homosexuals, racial minorities) at the expense of whites, letting non-white get away with crimes - without the State, these problems would not exist. Without Communism in Africa, blacks would not chop down entire forests for firewood. Without the hideously inefficient State Owned Enterprises which dominate China's economy, China would probably be using more effectively, resource-efficient and environmentally friendly technology. Yeah. Blame it all on capitalism (:o


and finally, probably the extinction and/or total degeneracy of our species, but I cant, and because I cant, I dont accept human weaknesses used by greedy grocers "as the human nature".LOL.


A better social organization and general policy, a technological advantage and a certain amount of protectionism.Ethical protectionism is far superior to politically enforced protectionism.


You could also say in the most simple way: An utilitaristic policy of the state rather than in the interests of the plutocracy.What is this plutocracy? And how would Austrian economics support it? And what is this 'utilitaristic policy of the state'?


You are wrong if you think that every owner thinks long-term oriented, because they arent, especially not nowadays.
Its the free market and financial services sector which lead to short time policies of both the state and the people - the owners as well.This might have something to do with the erratic monetary policies of the State.


Even more important, you cant always make money with the protection, but many times with the destruction of natural ressources, which means, if you have a greedy sociopath, and there will always be one, with enough money this person might be a threat. Its the duty of the community, i.e. the state to intervene and to correct things, no matter if he is the owner or not.*yawn* People do have a choice not to buy stuff from this 'greedy sociopath'.


The policy of the state should be long-term oriented, whereas the policy of individuals (can be) short-term oriented as well.Not really. It is ultimately individuals which propell the economy, not bureaucrats sitting in offices who parasitise off hard working citizens.


Of course if looking at the USA you dont see a need for the state, because of what this construct really lacks, maybe even from the beginning, is any kind of a useful long term policy for its own people.
But to judge about the state from that point of view, from that degenerated form of a state is wrong.Tell me why 'the people' can't make their own decisions? If they're all greedy, short-sighted fools, then I suppose the bureaucrats who pretend they have the right to direct their resources aren't much different?


Give me a good general and REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE, probably we can discuss about details.How about you read some Austrian economics first. Here's some links: http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp (http://<a%20href=/)" target="_blank">Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises, and Man, Economy and the State, with Power and Market (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp) by Murray Rothbard.


Because they are for one good action I can approve, or have certain theoretical approaches which are scientifically correct, I'm no apologist of the "Austrian School", why are you?Because they are correct.


As I said, you can probably learn from them, but their general approach is just wrong. Just because some things in the Tora are right, you dont want to convert to Judaism either or won't you?The Torah is illogical :P


And even more important, if you would be right, the power "of more whites" means what? Means that liberal individuals can get read of "annoying" taxes, or can exploit certain groups of the population, including many whites, better, but without getting much more children or getting more common sense oriented, it will be a "great victory" and all dreams will come true...Tell me how they can exploit certain groups of the population. Better still, tell me that what you believe Austrian economics would do is any different from what is already happening. Have you heard of pressure groups?


But who will control all those people? The multinational corporations and plutocrats - corrupted Jews and Anglocalvinists.No one will control anyone. I suppose you believe that if someone wants a cigarette and I want a dollar, I'm controlling that person if we make a trade?


What will that change significantly? It will bring up more social inequality and working poor, probably even more families (including "middle class" whites) which cannot afford more than one child if etc...Actually, the real wages of everyone will rise. Those 'middle class whites' who 'cannot afford more than one child' can't afford it because the Government is enjoying taking a third of their pay to stuff it into the mouths of filthy immigrants and social parasites, as well as special interest groups and the pockets and bank accounts of 'public servants'.


Nothing I want, nothing which will solve anything of greater importance. You might get rid of some "Leftists" that way, but thats it.Some? With appropriate use of propaganda campaigns (and there will be no State to throw you in prison) feminism will die off, birth rates will rise, and multiculturalism/multiracialism will be a dead cause.


Anyway, its no classic Liberalism, and what both the Chikago and the Austrian school presents is some sort of a economic and social "Manchester Liberalism" with neomarxistic views on individuals, minorities and the society as a whole.
Its the combination of the worst things of the last 2 centuries.LOL. What a load of crap. Substantiate these claims, please.


Like I explained and you can detect if you read him carefully, especially what he writes about education and ecological problems, he has some sort of naive messianism.Where? How? Do you think it appropriate that I say National Socialism is propelled by messianism, e.g. 'If we eliminate Jews and non-whites we'll live in a utopia'?


The combination of what I described above (negative elements of Liberalism and Marxism) is the result of people like him, mainly with a Jewish background, which decided to leave the path of Marxism and defend their pluralistic, messianic and multicultural convictions inside the capitalistic western model.That's interesting. Because Ludwig Von Mises, towards the end of his career, encouraged


Aha, well, interesting view on this economic theories but again, that might be your interpretation, but reality refutes it.Reality hasn't refuted a thing, except your pretensions to intellectual honesty.


Giving more power to the stock market, to form a totally free market and crippling the stateCorrection: there wouldn't be a State.


(or let him control by plutocrats and multinational corporations) means maybe that some of the minority laws would fall, but so would the last laws and rules which give some sort of protection to the Western populations.There are no laws that give protection to Western populations. Westerners would have better luck protecting their livelihood by working for it and keeping the State and other parasites away from their income, and by protecting their lives and property by whatever means they see fit.

What you said means to try to defeat one evil with even a greater one, which is and never was a good plan at any time.


Ok, but probably the main difference is, the "Chikago boys" already "tested" their theories, the "Austrians" not.Stagflation during the 1980's demonstrated that Chicago school monetarism is a load of rubbish.


If they would on a broad base, and where ever they influenced some state policies, the results would be catastrophic as well...Sure, catastrophic if you advocate parasitism, theft and terror.


Even more important, the "Austrian School" seems to be some sort of mask for the Chikago imo, they always quote the "Austrians" if they want to destroy social structures, attack nations for there protectionism etc, but if its about their own plutocratic clientele, if its about the real policy of the state, they just quote "Chikago" orthodoxy.What? Can you spell Chicago correctly or are you pretending to be smart by bastardising the English language? References please.


I even thought about how real this approach of manic preachers is anyway, because most of the time its nothing but a mask for plutocratic state intervention.LOL. More rambling rubbish from Agrippa.


Where do you live?Where do I live? Why bother asking? Most people here know where I live. I live in Melbourne, the second largest city in Australia, which once had a large industrial base before high taxes under labour Governments drove industries oversease.


Just look out of the window or go in any bigger industrial city in the West...Sure. I find products made in China because the Labor party State Government taxes high and pussy-foots around with leftist trade unions where eventually the Japanese corporation that was looking to invest in my city, and provide 500 jobs for Australians, decides that it's easier to invest in China because if there's disturbances the PLA will simply slaughter the workers and reach out into the provinces and drag some more in.


Oh yes? Well...Yeah, actually. I really do congratulate Somalia.


The only real freedom is the freedom of choice. How many people would have a free choice in an absolute predatory capitalism? How would they be influenced by the corporations, the media etc...LOL. Predatory WHAT? If are so damn stupid as to buy products courtesy of advertising, then they don't have much in the way of 'freedom of choice', do they? I go to the local shopping mall, and I can buy 15 different pairs of jeans. I can buy from amongst seven different brands of leather industrial boots, I can buy from twelve different brands of jackets (each brand having variety in colour and material), I can buy from amongst twenty different suit brands, I can buy Chinese food, I can buy ice cream, I can buy chicken and chips, I can buy suovlaki if I'm interested, I can buy croissants even. That choice exists courtesy of what remains of the market, not courtesy of the State. The media presents people with a series of options, they still get to choose what they want. The Government does not issue you with a two pairs of boots, six pairs of socks, four pairs of overalls and six pairs of underwear for use throughout the entire year a la George Orwell's 1984.


What you mean can only work, if at all, on a regional and rural base, its not possible or at least it will bring only negative results in a modern (post-) industrial culture.Prove it. This 'post industrial' economy exists because of disastrous Government policies and absurd taxation. Both would be elimited in Anarcho-Capitalism.

Agrippa
Thursday, December 23rd, 2004, 04:21 PM
First I want to know from you why you have Mussolini in your signature? You probably know the huge differences between Fascism and Liberalism, Liberalism of that kind, of the "Austrian school" in special!


Good to see you're calling the elderly Polish couple who lived down the street and own a grocer's store 'Jews'. Do you hear that everyone? If you work honestly to improve your own lot you're a 'Jew' according to Agrippa.

No. Ok, let me explain roughly what I mean with "grocer spirit". Its a view of the world and your life which is deeply individualistic, unheroic, unidealistic, in a negative way "conservative", superficial and mainly oriented on the personal career, power and profit without any higher moral. Now many people are like that, but typical for that spirit is the absence of shame or a higher moral and therefore contradicting moral implication.

One the one hand a grocer might not have this spirit, nor even a broker or Jew, but a simple worker or farmer can think like that on the other.
Its a moral just useful if you see all actions and goals of life like an amoralic small business man, a grocer. You know how most Jews, who were later quite successful, began? Or how most of the Anglocalvinists began their careers, even family traditions?
The problem is, like I explained above, that the heroic and higher moral of the aristocracy or the folk have no place in their thinking, they define their goals by material needs and desires ONLY.
Its not bad to go ahead, to earn money, to be a business man, its just bad if you dont think too much beyond that or have just hypocritical, with your real life not corresponding, pseudoreligious and religious moral of idiocy.



Can you tell me how this bullshit (and it is) is relevant to Austrian economics? How about you go read Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises or Man, Economy and the State by Murray Rothbard first? Let me guess: you won't, because 'they're Jews'. Which is nothing more than a cheap cop-out because you know you're spouting lies and empty slander at two of America's best advocates of liberty and individual sovereignty.

Liberty and individual sovereignty are values, yes, but to center every moral just around it and dont go beyond that, dont seeing higher priorities is typical and if you dont understand that, it might have different reasons, one might be indoctrination, the other might be personality - two things always important for ones convinctions.

Anyway, think about it again, you may understand what I meant. There are collective goals of higher value and higher priority than individual sovereignty, if you understand that or not.
Even more important, typical for America is the abuse of this values or better terms for their own plutocratic propaganda.


LOL. Tell me ANYWHERE where theft, contract breaking or lies is advocated by the Austrian school of economics. Really. I want page references to either Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises or Man, Economy and the State by Murray Rothbard. Please, really. Go through and find me excerpts from either or both books. You won't find it.

Again, you must distinguish theory and practise. What are average, even intelligent, individuals without being somewhat integrated and controlled by a social structure? If they arent religious as well, if individual freedom is the most important thing and everything will be organized by the free market, what does that mean?

That you will get people with a higher moral or people who will sell their own children?

In such a social organization without higher moral corruption and the consequences I described are the natural results. Human are not good per se, they will not get better just because they are (in theory, because most will have less choices) more free or everything will be organized by the invisible hand.

Again I see what it is really about, its about your typically modern and Western desire to be "absolutely free" without thinking about the consequences. Thats the reason why you like this ideology, not because you think its better for the white people, because deep in your soul you must know that this is nonsense.


What moral worldview? Moral cannibalism?

Moral cannibalism and the abuse of values and terms is the specialty of the "Austrian school", however, I agree that they are moral in so far, as they partly believe in their misconceptions, they might be that naive...


Tell me what's incorrect about their premises of 'human character'. That humans make decisions and have goals? LOL. It's self evident FACT.

Dont come up with things like that. Thats like saying, "dont agree the sun goes up in the East, dont you..."

But what has that to do with Neoliberalism and the reign of a unleashed and highly destructive predatory capitalism? Can you explain that?
Its typical for the people of the "Austrian School" and all the other Neoliberals that they use matters of course and sophisticated theories of high value for a low purpose, for arguing in the interests of bourgeois and the plutocracy in special - for the interests of individual and in short term relations - only.


Hardly.

Right, so you dont know whats really European and even more different Indoeuropean or "Aryan".


And what is this 'plutocracy', Agrippa? Can you explain what it is, its interests, and its negative effects on society? Or is this just empty rhetoric like everything else you've spewed out in the post I'm quoting right now?

I define the plutocracy as a part of society of great financial and political power which lives from this society but isnt rooted in it or acts for it, doesnt think about the public utilities of the whole.
They usually are uncoupled from the traditions and cultural, social and biological needs of the group from which they are living, they feel no deep responsibility to sacrifice for the whole, they are just interested in maximizing power and profit, some the interests of the people thinking and living like themselves as well (typical Anglocalvinists), some thinking at least somewhat on their tribe as well (Jewish plutocrats in special), though not in a really positive manner, because those under their class are always just material whereas they, by themselves, though not very useful for the society, are the crown.

Henry Ford or the Krupp family were somewhat like aristocratic industrialists, they were not perfect, they made mistakes, but they always felt with their people, they always thought beyond their small life and their profit - something a plutocrat in the sense I mean it naturally lacks.
As you can see industrialists of that kind are not the future, the future are managers, the question is just whether this managers learn to think about more than profit alone and who's controlling them and for what purpose.

So plutocrats could be defined as persons who accumulated financial and political power and using this power against the interests of the whole society, the majority of the individuals living in it, the group (f.e. race, nation) as a whole, the species and the ecosystem.

They acting with their oftentimes in an amoralic way accumulated means against the interests of the collective like I defined it f.e. in this posting:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=73299&postcount=27


What a load of crap. Austrian economics is classical liberalism.

First of all I dislike classical Liberalism anyway, so I dont want to debate about that, but just as a thought-provoking impulse, classical Liberalism was, if ever, only in the first stages of industrialization in charge, the conditions were not comparable to what we see today and even at the time the results were both from a social, ecological and biological perspective not that fine to say the least...

In our society of today which is already politically correct and dominated by the plutocratic media, more of "Liberalism" in the sense of the "Austrian school" means just to hand over the masses of our species to the multinational corporations controlled by irresponsible capital and the plutocrats.


Hell yes. Do you want to argue Marxism vs Austrian economics? I'll take the theory of marginal utility and you can take the labour theory of value. I'm ready right now if you'd like.

Know, but I hope you give good examples if its about, "why the market should control everything and the world will be better then..."


Read anything by Marx? I've read the Communist Manifesto and half of the first volume of Das Kapital. It is empty bullshit. Its economics have been refuted by both the Chicago and the Austrian schools (no serious economist follows the labour theory of value), its sociology was overthrown by Max Weber, and the 1917 Russian Revolution is a refutation of Marxism itself.

Probably you read what Max Weber was writing about the grocer spirit, America and Calvinism as well...


I see nothing by greed of the unworthy in Marxism, and I see integrity and pride in Austrian economics.

Yeah, the false pride of lofty individuals which doesnt want to accept the limitations of life in itself, who deny any responsibility for the future of the collective and for other individuals.



Tell me - do you honestly think free-trade capitalism, which existed on the outskirts of colonial America and exist in Somalia right now, honestly compares to the Chekist death squads and the Gulag Archipegalo of Soviet Russia, the killing fields of Pol Pot or mass starvation of Zimbabwe? That's where your envy and greed of the underclass, as encouraged by Marxism, takes you.

No point to discuss about that, I'm an Antimarxist as I said. Furthermore you can say what you want, but in a Communist Europe the white race would have survived and flourished more than in nowadays liberal shithouse...
Look at the results f.e. of mixture, birth rates, Eugenic measures, traditional European way of living etc...
From the 60's on the West was far behind the East in every of this points. So we discuss about many things and how ugly Communism was, but if you look at the current situation in Western Europe, you can hardly argue that it is all ok and so much better than in the East, because in the East Europeans would have at least have a chance, in the West we will have no chance without a system change, away from the liberal system of course...


Can you elaborate on this? Seriously. Because I honestly believe this is crap just like everything else I've so far quoted in your post.

I write quite much, but seriously, I like to talk much more...
If we could speak from person to person I could elaborate every point, but so I will just write a short resumee of what I know and how I see or analysed the approach of Hayek in special.

If its about ecology, I gave you an example and refuted your arguments, what did you answer now?

Same with the social system and health care, under modern social conditions and economical structures to allow market to controll those sectors means just to give up the control from the people to the plutocrats, just a few, the irresponsible capital and the multinational corporations.



Only themselves? That's interesting. Because it was the Catholic Spaniards that interbred with the black slaves and the natives in their colonies in the Americas, while these 'individualist, Calvinist' Anglo-Americans enforced strict slavery and segregation in relation to the blacks, and had no moral qualms with annihilating the red Indians.

Like I said above, it had both a "good" and a "bad" side, but now and from modernity own the bad side dominated.


Enemy for what? For advocating liberty and prosperity and studying the means by which this can be achieved?

There are different means, different paths and higher goals than that, the liberal way is for sure not the best for the race or whole species.


Not really. The decline of America pretty much began with massive state intervention against the will of the populace.

The American system and the individualistic view is just acceptable if its all small scale, it doesnt work in a bigger scale, thats the problem. If you know your neighbor and can count on him, it might work, in a fully industrialized environment it doesnt.
Then the individualism and liberty just turns against the own people, the own folk, and a parasitic class of people manipulates the insular individuals which still believe in their predestination, the success of the strenuous and the justice of the system, but thats just an naive illusion.



You quite plainly know nothing about the premises of Austrian economics, which rests effectively on the fact that man acts to attain goals. Why don't you read some Austrian economics yourself?

If I want to know more about how humans try to attain goals I read psychological and human ethological works, if its about economy I just want to know which system they aspire and with which arguments.

If the system they want is destructive, unsocial and degenerating I dont need to read some second class interpretations of human actions.


Thes human differences do not invalid Austrian economics. I've come to the conclusion you don't know what you're talking about. I believe this will be confirmed further throughout your post.

Again, its just a misunderstanding, but if you read as far as that, you might already know that, its the individualistic perspective which harms, not that they cant accept human differences, of course they can, because they come near to some sort of "liberal social darwinism" which is not effective but just brutal.
They can accept individual differences and think that group differences will be eliminated by their approach of "total freedom and market control" which would destroy any non-profit-oriented trial to discriminate people.


Honestly, are the voters of America responsible for Europe's self-dissolution?

Yes they are. The Clinton and Bush administration f.e. helped to establish in Europe the politically correct idiocy in the whole European Union and beyond.
With their restitution claims which would have had no success without the American intervention, they changed once again the intellectual view on many things in Europe (not to speak about the money and the thousands of Holo-memorials) to the worse.



America intervened in world war 2 to stop Adolf Hitler siezing control of all Europe. Both America and Britain had no objections to Germany incorporating German populations living under the laws of countries (e.g. in Austria, Czeckoslovakia, etc.), but they intervened precisely because of Adolf Hitler's national chauvinism which displayed itself in the annexation of the rest of Czeckoslovakia. Hitler claimed to desire national self determination for the German populations in Europe by incorporating them into his largely monoethnic state (with the exception of the Jews who still lived there) - a principle supported by the British and the Americans - but then turned around and violated it.

Well, thats the most pro-Anglo view you can have on this subject, especially if you think that Hitler just wanted to destroy Bolshevism with which the "West" allied just to destroy the German power.

NS-Germany never wanted a war with Great Britain or the USA, in fact it saw this countries, though degenerated and ruled by the plutocracy even at that time, as Nordic kin.

Even with Poland no war was aspired on its own purpose, but just to get the Ethnic Germans and to stop Soviet Bolshevism.

If the USA and GB wouldnt have been anti-German they could have made valuable treaties and Germany would have accept them (with a high probability) and we would have a predominantely Nordic Europe with a social and collective organization, not perfect but able to evolve - not a dead end of European evolution like we see it now.

But their grocer spirit, bigot moral and trade and geostrategical interests prevented them from acting racialy and biologically rational and let them attack their racial kin and let them defend even Soviet Bolshevism.
NS had many faults, was probably to rough in brutal in many ways, but finally it would have achieved what the liberal society cannot achieve - to secure and to evolve the group, species and ecosystem.
The current liberal system cant, a reformed liberal system in the "Austrian way" would fail, thats for sure.

In NS Europe the degeneration of Europe would have been stopped (though with sometimes unnecessary or too brutal and even uneffective measures) and the survival and power of the Europeans, the white people would have survived and flourished to this day and beyond.

Again its (like with Communism) its a question of alternatives, it doesnt matter why they intervened, it was mainly because of their wish to control the world and to form a liberal empire, the results count.
It was a fight of ideologies and the worse of the two alternatives won.
We can learn from many things and worldviews, but to say the "Austrian school" is THE solution is absurd.


There is absolutely nothing stopping Europeans from instituting cultural protectionism. American voters did not force the Netherlands to accept gay parades and Muslim immigrants. As much as you'd like to bitch about McDonalds, the fact is that Europeans still eat it, which keeps McDonalds franchises in Europe in business. And those McDonalds franchises are also owned by Europeans.

Its about cultural, propaganda, media and economical domination. This all wouldnt have been established, at least not that easy, without the two world wars, therefore everything must be seen as the result of the world wars and the resulting American dominance.
So if we want to analyse the path of the West in our time, we have to look at the character of the American system - which is dominated by the grocer spirit.


LOL. Both Mises and Rothbard would have (if they weren't dead) opposed the Iraq war, the welfare state, intervention in other countries' wars and internal affairs.

Ok, that would be better for the world, but not because it would work for the US, but it would accelerate its decline as do the current actions of the "Neoconservatives". (You recognized the difference I made between Neoliberals (left) and Neoconservatives (right)...)


LOL, what? Austrian school economics leaves freedom of choice, association, freedom to bear arms, rights to property, all to the individual. If you don't want to work with faggots, get another job. If you don't want Turks moving into your country, start a propaganda campaign to make everyone in your country agree with you. If you don't want Muslims getting away with rioting and throwing bricks through your windows, go ahead and shoot them when they do. No follower of the Austrian school of economics will stop you.

You are just dreaming, such a freedom will never be the result of its practise, they are just ratters if they let people like you dream that way.


Austrian economics provided the means to predict the 1930's great depression, the Asian economic crisis and the stagflation of the 1980s'.

Interestingly people like Soros, which are responsible for such events to a great extend, like the "Austrian school" quite much...


Oh, and how is that? Prove what you think they're about by referring to texts written by Austrian economists, and then demonstrate how they're wrong.

Again, look at the examples I made in my posting in which I quoted some questions of the test. I read various papers of Hayed and his scholars about education and the social system as well, but they arent at my home now...


Provide evidence. Austrian economics denies the need or desire for the State absolutely.

Well, in their world multinational corporations would be the new states...a great achievement for you?


Actually, the corrupt Jews would lose their businesses pretty damn quick because they wouldn't be protected by Government policy. We live in a mixed economy, by the way, not in a free market society.

I know that, but interestingly the Anglocalvinist plutocrats have much more advantages from what you describe, Jews seem to be more flexible...


Really? Why is that? And what's wrong with stock markets and interest? Do you know what the purpose, reason and service of interest is?

I would say yes. My point is not that I'm totally against the stock market, interests etc like some others, but that I want to control them by a non corrupted collective oriented government.
What they say is irresponsible because the freedom of choice and of the individuals is a maculature in a modern capitalist economy with certain structures and institutions.


What plutocrats? And how will they control 'all means of power'?

In America they pay the politicians, are politicians by themselves, control all sorts of media, many charity and social organizations, most universities, many schools, the job market, the financial sector of course...etc.


Higher goals are decided by the individual and the action

Ok, again its typical for your spirit and argumentation, but its wrong, its egomaniac. Because the individual can fail and is by itself and alone not always capable of analysing a situation correctly, furthermore it might be driven, corrupted, might be egomaniac, might be influenced by an irrational religion like many Westerners and Americans in special are etc.
So higher goals can be mainly defined by scientific analysis and utilitaristic goals.
Because we are biological beings, biological needs and determinations must be analysed and have a priority before secondary cultural implications.
I can again just suggest to read my sentences about progressive Collectivism.

One problem with the "Austrians" is, they argue socio-economical, but make mistakes about social structures and negled social and biological determinations of the individuals to a great extend. In so far they promote "freedom", a pseudoreligious free spirit which is based on false premises and a religious view on humans, because humans are determined and dont find their sense in themselves, as individual, alone.



'Let it run'? Things will get better if people cease being parasites and start working for everything they own, cease defrauding others and stop relying on brute force like savages do and work to improve their lives.

Work is good, work is fine, but what speaks out of this words is the grocer spirit and the Calvinistic logic of what life should be and how Capitalism should work, which is, in no way better, maybe partly even worse, than the Jewish way of Capitalism which is at least partly determined by other goals than work and profit as an end in itself.


Bullshit. The laziest and most degenerate multiply exponentially while the intelligent and hard working decrease over time under the current system.

Yes, but the mistake is not made by the "lazy" or poor people alone, but by the strenuous and rich people as well WHICH JUST DONT GET ENOUGH CHILDREN ANY MORE!!!

Why? Because they think just individualistic, they dont even think about bringing up their own child, not to speak about a greater whole, a collective.
Furthermore if they want to stay efficient and wealthy they have to work, work and work, for the irresponsible capital and the plutocracy without being able to do enough for their family, their social environment, to raise children or to act really for the collective in another way than "just working".

So the "successful" just kill themselves and thats exactly the reason why feminism will never be stopped by such an idiocy, because the corporations need cheap but well-educated and qualified individuals - so they need women at work and immigration to get the wages down.
The funny thing is the "Austrian school" says the wages SHOULD GO DOWN, because they are to high, so what does that say to you?
That they should approve the current steps undertaken by our corrupted goverments and that the depts policy is "a chance".

Yes, the dept policy is a change, a chance for the corporations and the plutocrats to crush the rest of normative thinking, of good norms for the group and of social cohesion.



Define this 'greed'. There is nothing wrong with pursuing one's own interests, what is wrong according to those who have written on capitalist ethics, is being a parasite or a thug and demanding the product of the work of others.

Well, its an interesting point, probably you write about interests, low wages and the stock market again...

By the way this "capitalist ethic" you demand (again a contradiction in itself) is nonsense if looking at the bigger picture beyond the individual.
But thats something a grocer seldom could and the plutocrats never would.

If its about parasites it should be about people harming the collective, a 1000 bums harms the collective never in the same way as one Hayek, Soros or Wolfowitz.


Actually, you can blame this on the State. Taxation, coercing the children of whites into education systems which spout anti-white ideals, importing and discounting the lifestyles of degenerates (i.e. homosexuals, racial minorities) at the expense of whites, letting non-white get away with crimes - without the State, these problems would not exist. Without Communism in Africa, blacks would not chop down entire forests for firewood. Without the hideously inefficient State Owned Enterprises which dominate China's economy, China would probably be using more effectively, resource-efficient and environmentally friendly technology. Yeah. Blame it all on capitalism (:o

Actually all that means were used by Liberals to fight Communism and to destroy natural social cohesion and norms. They used minorities to destroy the resistance and awareness of the collective, to undermine its norms and higher moral beyond individual approaches.
Like we all can see this worked quite well in the West, especially the Anglo states, even with people which say they are racist and not anti-gay...


LOL.

Nice you can laugh about it, its probably a sign of higher moral or the lack of one.


Ethical protectionism is far superior to politically enforced protectionism.

Might be, but thats a dream, good luck with getting one up... :P


*yawn* People do have a choice not to buy stuff from this 'greedy sociopath'.

Illusion of choice. With low wages, advertising and certain infrastructural conditions you dont have one, especially if its about multinational corporations with a monopoly.


Not really. It is ultimately individuals which propell the economy, not bureaucrats sitting in offices who parasitise off hard working citizens.

Hard working is good, the question is just what you are working for, working alone makes nobody moralic or superious, especially not in our modern times.
Think of a perfect Nordid just working all the time for a multinational corporation which is in the hands of a Jewish plutocrat and who earns more and more money by the hard work of this brave citizen over the stock market.
He works so much that he can live his drives only with substitution and in hedonism, he has no children and just dont want as much money as possible because he want even more hedonism.
Well, what a decent person and a great life he has, if he used his energy and talents that way, of course we have millions of such wasted lifes and people in our countries and all over the world, the best which oftentimes think like you would want them to think but dont look beyond their tiny life.
More Liberalism means just more of that and a faster dead of the Nordid race and all Europeans!


Tell me why 'the people' can't make their own decisions? If they're all greedy, short-sighted fools, then I suppose the bureaucrats who pretend they have the right to direct their resources aren't much different?

Its a question of specialty as well, if you are a specialist for computers, you might not know too much about the sea or the ecology of the forest, so a scientist, a specialist is far better to decide about that.
So his decision comes up to a non-corrupted, not by the market influenced politician and speaks to the bureaucracy.

If you would let the small grocer decide, might he be intelligent and personally "ok", greed and short sightness might prevail, therefore a state, a policy independent from the market and a specialized political elite are good and necessary.

Same about social questions, you might just see the taxes, but the state should see if there are persons in a emergency situations which have (maybe later in their life or their children) a value for the collective, or might be treated just as humans as well.
The grocer dont see that, he only see that in his personal environment if at all, but thats again the problem of individualistic views in a mass society.


How about you read some Austrian economics first. Here's some links: http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp (http://<a%20href=/)" target="_blank">Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises, and Man, Economy and the State, with Power and Market (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp) by Murray Rothbard.

Thx.



Tell me how they can exploit certain groups of the population. Better still, tell me that what you believe Austrian economics would do is any different from what is already happening. Have you heard of pressure groups?

Sure, and I know it will get worse. Again, more Liberalism = more corruption and faster death of the Europeans.


No one will control anyone. I suppose you believe that if someone wants a cigarette and I want a dollar, I'm controlling that person if we make a trade?

If there are 10 plutocrats owning a whole region with all the infrastructure, schools, food, jobs etc., you are nothing but a dependent rat if there is no superstructure.
But again, in your model the corporations would be the new, of course totally capitalistic, "states".



Actually, the real wages of everyone will rise. Those 'middle class whites' who 'cannot afford more than one child' can't afford it because the Government is enjoying taking a third of their pay to stuff it into the mouths of filthy immigrants and social parasites, as well as special interest groups and the pockets and bank accounts of 'public servants'.

This "social parasites" and immigrants are welcomed by the plutocracy and greater parts of the middle class because of their cheap labour.
Its a well known strategy of those Neoliberals that they let such people come in, but let the middle class pay and say to it, "well, social welfare is just bad for you, social laws are just bad for you blablablablablabla..."

With the result that all this things get away and that finally, if those multinational want a new location for their industry or threat the people with it the "middle class" and people which voted for all the unsocial things are of course helpless, without union, without laws or a helping state.

Finally they have, even if educated, work for almost nothing and will not bring up more than two children, if they get any at all. Again the result are wasted lifes and a destroyed economy in the West, at least on the long run.

The immigrants are not the result of state control or normative moral, but the breakup of the same and a deeply individualistic and capitalistic worldview.



Some? With appropriate use of propaganda campaigns (and there will be no State to throw you in prison) feminism will die off, birth rates will rise, and multiculturalism/multiracialism will be a dead cause.

Multiculturalism yes, because there will be probably (if they win) one great and efficient (from a capitalist point of view) society in which everybody will be used as an individual by the corporations.

Well, a great piece of freedom you will get, with salt and pepper and great for the majority of the individuals, the group, the species and ecosystem...come on, feminism is already almost dead, but the cheap and hard working women, the women which live their life for the corporation as their men do, will be needed much more in the society you describe.

And if its about getting lower wages for the men only, they will be used and indoctrinated.
You know that the wages are determined by demand in a pure capitalistic ecnomy as well, dont you? That means the plutocrats will never stop immigration or working women because they need them as a mean a cheap ressource.
Forget about that, its of course one of the great differences to classical Liberalism and its times, because at that time the own people were muds and there were enough of them, only later when the demand for workers was greater they had a chance and changed the society in a positive way of course.

Now they have destroyed Fascism, NS and Communism, do you really think they want strong workers and middle class in their countries now? They shit on it and they will not stop immigration, only if the state would coerce to pay for the immigrants by themselves!

But women? Never, never, they will alway keep the wages low by an excess supply of workers.


Where? How? Do you think it appropriate that I say National Socialism is propelled by messianism, e.g. 'If we eliminate Jews and non-whites we'll live in a utopia'?

Its at least not totally wrong, just that NS thought about more things, Communism and Liberalism mainly though about socio-economic structures and socio-economic structures and theories alone - thats their mistake, if you can use messianism in a positive way its just mean, who cares...


That's interesting. Because Ludwig Von Mises, towards the end of his career, encouraged

I'm sure he did...

Reality hasn't refuted a thing, except your pretensions to intellectual honesty.


Correction: there wouldn't be a State.

Right, only multinational corporations...I agree though the difference is just that the state has tradition and a certain amount of higher moral, even today, a corporations determined by the stock market hasnt both.


There are no laws that give protection to Western populations. Westerners would have better luck protecting their livelihood by working for it and keeping the State and other parasites away from their income, and by protecting their lives and property by whatever means they see fit.

Dont pretend to be radical...

This American model failed over the last 100 years, why should it work under the new, even worse conditions, it won't...
And yes, you ever heard from border? From citizenship? Yes, did you?
...
What do you mean with
whatever means they see fit ...they? They? They? Who they? The stock market, people like Soros?
Seriously, you probably know what the people controlling the market want, what they say and how they think at the moment. To give them all the power, what would be the only result of any "Austrian" approach, means a faster death of the European race(s) and social structures, nothing else.


Stagflation during the 1980's demonstrated that Chicago school monetarism is a load of rubbish.


To be blunt: Chikago school is shit, I already agree with you.


Sure, catastrophic if you advocate parasitism, theft and terror.

Did Marx explicitely did that? But the result were clear, same will be with a practice of the "Austrian school"...


What? Can you spell Chicago correctly or are you pretending to be smart by bastardising the English language? References please.

Well, in German you can say Chikago, just search google, but ok, I agree I should have write your English way, no problem, next time we can speak German in the German section, you probably will show your great German there. :D


LOL. More rambling rubbish from Agrippa.

Is this your standard answer if you dont have any other one?


Where do I live? Why bother asking? Most people here know where I live. I live in Melbourne, the second largest city in Australia, which once had a large industrial base before high taxes under labour Governments drove industries oversease.

Probably you look up what the American policy, GATT, GATS and the neoliberal policy changed, than you look what is for what responsible again.

But I have to say that the situation is somewhat different for Australia which is near to the Asian market, than in Europe. Measures very useful for Europe might not work that good for the Aussies...


Sure. I find products made in China because the Labor party State Government taxes high and pussy-foots around with leftist trade unions where eventually the Japanese corporation that was looking to invest in my city, and provide 500 jobs for Australians, decides that it's easier to invest in China because if there's disturbances the PLA will simply slaughter the workers and reach out into the provinces and drag some more in.

You find this things because of a free trade and free capital which build up the own business competition in Asia.

China is the opposite of a free market, has a currency and trade control etc., it works quite well doesnt it?
Australia cannot compete with the nominal wages of China, you should know that. If your Australian workers would die on starvation because of low wages, workers in China would still live, live better and be cheaper...


Yeah, actually. I really do congratulate Somalia.

Maybe you want to visit your "model country"?


LOL. Predatory WHAT? If are so damn stupid as to buy products courtesy of advertising, then they don't have much in the way of 'freedom of choice', do they? I go to the local shopping mall, and I can buy 15 different pairs of jeans.

Great choice in a great country? *lol* :D :P



I can buy from amongst seven different brands of leather industrial boots, I can buy from twelve different brands of jackets (each brand having variety in colour and material), I can buy from amongst twenty different suit brands, I can buy Chinese food, I can buy ice cream, I can buy chicken and chips, I can buy suovlaki if I'm interested, I can buy croissants even. That choice exists courtesy of what remains of the market, not courtesy of the State. The media presents people with a series of options, they still get to choose what they want. The Government does not issue you with a two pairs of boots, six pairs of socks, four pairs of overalls and six pairs of underwear for use throughout the entire year a la George Orwell's 1984.

Ah well, you are still quite optimistic and dont have too much experience probably.
Again, in a personal discussion it would be a lot more easier to explain were you made your mistakes, bust just let me say one thing now:
Brands, and even if there are thousands and thousands of them, are not the same as a free choice. You get that? Think about it.


Prove it. This 'post industrial' economy exists because of disastrous Government policies and absurd taxation. Both would be elimited in Anarcho-Capitalism.

It exists because of the Neoliberal turn, the "Chicago school" policy and the free market, the free stock market, not controlled by higher instances of higher responsibility and moral.

A very personal question, I know we are ALL influenced by our background, but do your father say similar things about the economy? Does he believe the tenor of the media?
Did you believe that the governmental policy and tax policy in your country (not regarding international treaties) were responsible for the industrial decline of Australia and the West before or after your read something from the Austrian school?

I know there are many conservatives, racists, religious people etc. which hate the state for a good reason, but just see what they want to see and want to make responsible. If then someone comes with a theory like "the state is guilty" they tend to cheer and jubilate and think this might be a chance, not thinking too much about further consequences and the real intentions of the apologists of such an ideology...

Telperion
Thursday, December 23rd, 2004, 08:53 PM
True. And this is where Anarcho-Capitalism can solve the 'problem' as we see it (globalists won't see a problem though). The State, with its welfare administrations, actively thieves resources from the population over which it has power, and redistributes in whatever way it sees fit. Neither the State (as an organisation with a monopoly of force over a section of territory) nor a welfare administration based on tax would exist in an Anarcho-Capitalist society. However, people would be free to organise themselves into organisations to protect their own property, over which they can define their own laws. Which means trespasses can be executed. Conceiving the state as a stationary bandit certainly has a great deal of empirical validity as far as the actual behaviour of contemporary states is concerned. What I would take issue with, though, is conceiving of the state as an institution which only plays a redistributive and parasitic role, and which does not and cannot contribute anything of value to the functioning of the economic system. To the contrary, the state plays an important role in the provision of public goods or positive externalities (such as defense against external attack), the reduction of transaction costs and risks in order to facilitate economic exchanges (through provision of a relatively stable legal framework for third-party enforcement of contracts etc.), and in compensation for or correction of market failures or negative externalities (through policies regulating industrial pollution, for instance). All of these activites need to be financed, which implies a certain level of taxation (whether through tariffs, sales taxes or income taxes) is necessary for their provision.

What I've come to find lacking in the Austrian approach is that it doesn't seem to offer a cogent analysis of the trade-offs that would be involved in severely curtailing, or in fact eliminating the role of the state in the economy. It focuses on the obvious positive consequences of freeing individuals from state coercive authority, but it ignores or downplays the costs that would be collectively incurred on the level of net welfare (and therefore incurred by many if not most individuals, depending on the distribution of benefits and costs amongst individuals associated with the elimination of the state) as a consequence of eliminating the provision of public goods, reduction of transaction costs, and correction of market failures that had once been offered by the state. If the state is not playing these roles, then they will as much as possible have to be assumed by private organizations in order to maintain the scale of economic activity and rate of technological innovation that existed prior to the abolition of the state. This, however, leads to the collective action problems associated with the provision of public goods, the diversion of private resources deal with issues such as contract enforcement, and lack of compensation for or correction of market failures, all of which would have deletirious consequences for economic welfare.

The fundamental economic question, of course, is whether any gains in private income and scope of action (by eliminating state regulation) would compensate on the level of net welfare for the loss of the positive benefits provided by the state (leaving aside entirely any sort of redistributive role for the state); otherwise, the abolition of the state would only have positive net consequences for some individuals, at the expense of the majority, which seems difficult to justify normatively. If we try to address this question by means of thought experimentation, we might consider what would happen to (for example) an automobile company under anarcho- capitalism. It would have to incur huge costs to pay for a private security force that could protect itself against physical threats on any scale; an objective that would not be attainable at all, unless either the entire world was in a condition of anarcho-capitalism (so that vast standing militaries operated by foreign states did not exist), or corporations/economic consortiums banded together in shifting, unstable coalitions to defend themselves against aggressors (which is surely a very inefficient way of ensuring security when compared to a centralized, stable public security force). It could never assume that the same principles of contract interpretation and enforcement would apply to any particular transaction, since even these principles themselves would be constantly subject to (re-)negotiation, substantially increasing the transaction costs associated with agreements with its suppliers and its customers, substantially increasing the transactions costs and risks associated with economic exchanges. Its employees would have to incur the health and associated productivity consequences associated with rampant air, water and soil pollution, since in the absence of state authority collective action problems would make it very difficult if not impossible for individuals to correct or compensate for these sorts of negative externalities. All of these costs would subtract from the resources available to the company to conduct its operations on the most efficient possible scale, and to pursue technnological innovation in manufacturing processes and product development. Against these costs would be set the benefits of not having to pay taxes or incur the costs associated with state regulation. However, the sheer magnitude and scope of the costs associated with the absence of state authority certainly make highly contestable any claim that there would be no diminuition of net economic welfare under a condition of anarcho-capitalism. Indeed, it seems very likely that such a company would simply not be able to sustain the scale of economic activity, or the rate of technological innovation and new product development, that it could in a modern mixed economy, becuase of the significant resource diversion and productivity losses that would caused by privately assuming so many functions that had once been public, or by suffering the consequences of market failures, increased transation costs etc. that would be associated with the absence of public (state) authority .

So yes, some sort of industrial economy might be able to function under anarcho-capitalism, but it seems very doubtful that it could function on the scale, or with the rate of technologial innovation that we see today. There would almost certainly be a diminuition of net economic welfare and of technological innovation relative even to the mixed-economy status quo. This is the trade-off that those who advocate anarcho-capitalism need to address.

The danger of relying on the state for the three basic functions set out above, of course, is that it is vulnerable to corruption by public officials, and to capture by political interest groups (including those representing corporate interests), which can then use state capabilities to enhance their own welfare at the expense of net welfare through redistributive schemes and other means.But, I would suggest that reducing if not eliminating corruption and interest-group capture of the state should be a question of the institutional design of the state, with regard to the culture and values adhered to by the citizenry that shape their relationship with state institutions. A particular challenge for our time is how to design state institutions so that they are less vulnerable to capture by corporate and leftist interest groups. Much work needs to be done in thinking about that issue, and I could be validly criticised for not offering an explanation here of how that could be done (although that is more a question of political analysis, strategy and tactics than of economics). To abolish the state entirely though, or arrive at some condition close to the abolition of the state, is in my view a sort of throwing out of the baby with the bathwater.


Whites could then buy back land all across America (alternatively, homesteading property owned by black criminals who've been killed in the mean time) and have blacks voluntarily deported and hispanics thrown back into Mexico. It's possible. This could easily happen in an industrial society, and there is nothing to say it can't. The State, at present, both sustains a massive underclass of otherwise unemployed people (including 'public servents', i.e. parasites) as well as unsustainable corporations. Both problems can be solved.Well, there's nothing to say it can happen in an industrial society either, because we can't point to any historical examples of an anarcho-capitalist industrial society. (Although one might speculate that there was a period in Russia in the 1990's when it appeared to be developing along these lines, given the weakness of state institutions, the growth of powerful private organizations, and the enforcement of contracts by putting contracts out on people. Though that example raises the political issue of to whom such private agglomerations of economic and political power are accountable in the absence of state authority. ) In any event, you're quite right to analyze the issue by way of thought experiments, but I would suggest (based on the argument I've sketched out above) that the economic price to be paid under the scenario you've outlined would be quite severe, in the long term as well as the short term.

Stríbog
Thursday, December 23rd, 2004, 10:54 PM
Sure. In an Anarcho-Capitalist society, without a centralised authority to impose its world-view on its subject populations, interest groups would be free to use advertising and other forms of influence to bring about a strong group-consciousness among their own ethnic groups. This would also have economic and political ramifications as well. Whites can be influenced to cease buying products from businesses owned by racial foreigners.

If you think the media control is absolute now, wait until there are no states left and we are ruled entirely by global conglomerates and told what to eat, drink, wear, listen to, watch, etc. by global media empires.


Better than that 'German' school of economics known as Marxism.

Is this why Marx sought refuge in London, old chap?


Within Anarcho-Capitalism no one is forced to do anything.

This is the most naïve thing I've read in a long time...


America intervened in world war 2 to stop Adolf Hitler siezing control of all Europe.

Or to stop him from leaving the international finance capital system to which they had both long ago sold out.


Both America and Britain had no objections to Germany incorporating German populations living under the laws of countries (e.g. in Austria, Czeckoslovakia, etc.),

They really didn't care either way, but these issues afforded a pretense for war.


but they intervened precisely because of Adolf Hitler's national chauvinism which displayed itself in the annexation of the rest of Czeckoslovakia.

Funny, I don't recall Anglo-American outrage when the Empire decided to take South Africa in the name of international diamond and metal speculation under the guidance of Englishmen with names like Baum, Moses and Solomon, as well as their shabbos goyim like Rhodes.


Hitler claimed to desire national self determination for the German populations in Europe by incorporating them into his largely monoethnic state (with the exception of the Jews who still lived there) - a principle supported by the British and the Americans - but then turned around and violated it.

Been listening to too much Fade?


Because it was the Catholic Spaniards that interbred with the black slaves and the natives in their colonies in the Americas, while these 'individualist, Calvinist' Anglo-Americans enforced strict slavery and segregation in relation to the blacks,

Right, is that why American blacks are between 20 and 28% white? Have you ever been to the South? Slavery did not prevent miscegenation; in fact, the close proximity between white master and black servant that it fostered simply made miscegenation much easier.


and had no moral qualms with annihilating the red Indians.

Yes... 'annihilating' them... with their... penises?

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/culture/mixed_groups.gif

Agrippa
Thursday, December 23rd, 2004, 11:46 PM
Telperion made valid points I just agree with, in perfect English I can add...
Anyway, I would just add to his analysis once more the point that corporations would take over the role of the state sooner or later.
The reason is easy to explain, small groups and business wouldnt be able to do what is necessary, they would need protection, insurance services for themselves, their business and workers. If there is no state any more the great monopolists can do what they want - which will end in some kind of totallitarian and radical capitalistic form of government by the corporations.

Phlegethon
Friday, December 24th, 2004, 12:05 AM
http://tmcm.com/comics/tmcm041206.gif
http://toomuchcoffeeman.com/comics/tmcm041213.gif

Joe000
Friday, December 24th, 2004, 07:30 AM
:lol How did you come upon that genius comic, Phlegethon?

Susisaari
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 10:43 PM
http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp


My score is 98 / 100. :D


So was mine. The only question where I disagreed with the Austrian answer was the one about business cycles.