Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:50 | #

James, enjoyed your posts for some time.

It is hard to know what is motivating these financial stories. MSN recently had an article documenting income stratification and stagnating wages which was well done.

In so far as the data can be trusted, given much of it is produced by the Washington Tyranny or its tentacles in the media, though it seems factual and matches what I observe and document.

Still, I suspect much of it is simply raw meat for the current election cycle.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:25 | #

“The dollar’s decline against the euro shows no sign of ending. Clearly, currency traders have made a long-term judgment about the relative value of the currencies of the Old and New Worlds. That sounds bad enough. But now there are signs that we’re losing some of the most devoted fans of the greenback: drug dealers, Russian oligarchs, and black-market traffickers of all kinds.”

If any of that’s genuine and not, as Geoff suspects, some sort of “October-Surprise” hype aimed at getting Democrats elected next month, it doesn’t need a rocket scientist to see what’s causing it:  investors, banks, currency speculators and so on are betting Europe won’t let itself become as race-replaced as the United States will.  Market demand for currencies backed by Mexican and Negro populations is weaker than for currencies backed by white ones:  the free market is not PC and can’t be made to conform to PC:  the smart betting follows race.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:56 | #

Geoff, my basic motivation is my perception that our genetic predisposition toward small harem sizes (ecologically imposed monogamy or at least very evenly distributed paternity) has a correlate in distribution of wealth.  Looking at <a >the ecological correlations with whites you see a pronounced tendency toward a strong middle class and as the middle class disappears so do whites</a>. 

We can argue cause and effect but the association is clear.

Posted by Karlmagnus on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:17 | #

Possibly right, but early.  There’s no way the system collapses into hyperinflation that quickly. I think it likely that reported inflation will be in the 6-8% range in a year’s time (actual inflation of 8-10%), with the Fed raising short term rates as slowly as possible to try to keep up, and the Dow and the dollar and the US economy sinking fast—perhaps Dow 8.000 and 90yen to the dollar and $1.40 to the Euro. But that’s not hyperinflation; it is at worst an inflationary late 1930, not 1932. Oil may be $100 per barrel, though.

Posted by Furius on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:08 | #

I doubt if there will be any hyper-inflation in a year. As Karl points out, there may well be higher inflation in a year from now but I doubt that we will have anything like hyper-inflation.

The fundamental reason for this is that central banks in the West know what they need to do in order to bring inflation under control - tighten the money supply significantly. If this is done properly (and at the right time), inflation can be brought under under control without things getting out of hand. It might, however, puncture the US housing bubble - an event that could cause a severe recession in the US and Britain.

it doesn’t need a rocket scientist to see what’s causing it:  investors, banks, currency speculators and so on are betting Europe won’t let itself become as race-replaced as the United States will.  Market demand for currencies backed by Mexican and Negro populations is weaker than for currencies backed by white ones:  the free market is not PC and can’t be made to conform to PC:  the smart betting follows race.

The basic characteristic of the free market is that it generally thinks short term. The people who play the markets are the same people who hire Mexican/Latino labour to clean their babies’ nappies and they have a PC opinion on race. What is driving the dollar’s decline is the US trade deficit which is fast approaching $ 1 trillion annually. Europe doesn’t have this problem. So long as the US trade deficit keeps expanding, the US dollar will continue to decline in value.

Is the US trade deficit caused by race replacement? I doubt it. The US hasn’t run a trade surplus since the days of Lyndon Johnson (who presided over a country that was more than 90 percent white). The US trade deficit is caused by many factors not usually noticed - the US commitment to a fairly ideological view of free trade, inability to deal with invisible trade barriers imposed by Japan and China and the decline of US manufacturing (caused partly by affirmative action and a decline in schooling standards). 

This is not to say that the markets won’t ultimately react to the economic disaster the US Government is creating for its own people. But markets are short term driven and rarely think that far ahead. If they did, the US economy would have already been deserted by smart long-term investors and people wouldn’t be snapping up US treasury bills the way they usually do.

In so far as the data can be trusted, given much of it is produced by the Washington Tyranny or its tentacles in the media, though it seems factual and matches what I observe and document.

The media reports it because this sort of news favours the Democrats and the Media is heavily democrat. Not that the Democrats coming to power would solve any problems - you will get just as much illegal immigration and get even more government profligacy. Nothing will change.

The media doesn’t hate the Republicans because the Republicans are profligate, the media hates Republicans because the Republicans get the vote of white America, stand against the “rights” of Gays and Lesbians, against abortion and are in favour of the rights of Gun owners. So anything that gets rid of the Republicans is good news for the media.

Posted by Furius on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:14 | #

Looking at the ecological correlations with whites you see a pronounced tendency toward a strong middle class and as the middle class disappears so do whites.

The middle class is creation of the industrial revolution. It didn’t exist pre-18th century (or if it did, its numbers were small). Medieval Europe was populated by serfs and nobles but there was no real threat of race replacement at that time.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:31 | #

Furious,

The merchant class, which was the foundation of our present-day middle-class, existed in the ancient world.  In England it was given a fine push in the back as early as 1485.  One could equally make a case that the printing press, dated forty-five years earlier, was a founding factor.

The Industrial Revolution was created by men of the middle-class.

All complex societies exhibit social layering.  I would expect that in every case the mean IQ reaches or exceeds the 91 required for civilisation.  Where a country is polarised there may still be wealth, but little or no freedom or advancement among the people.

Intelligence + social stability + freedom = a growing middle class.

Posted by Furius on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:39 | #

The merchant class, which was the foundation of our present-day middle-class, existed in the ancient world.  In England it was given a fine push in the back as early as 1485.  One could equally make a case that the printing press, dated forty-five years earlier, was a founding factor.

The merchant class was very small in those days. When we think of the middle class now, we are speaking of societies in which the majority is middle class - property owning bourgeoisie. This is a function of an industrial economy.

The middle class did exist in the pre-industrial revolution period, but its numbers were tiny (as a percentage of the population). One cannot sustain a middle class on a purely agrarian economy unless land is abundant and the population very small (as was the case in America for a century before the industrial revolution). Europe was divided between the extremely wealthy landowning elite (nobles) and the landless labourers (serfs). There wasn’t much in between except for a tiny handful of clerical men who served the state and a smattering of merchants.

I am contesting the idea that the disappearance of a middle class means a danger of racial extinction. That danger is unique to this era but clearly was not a problem in pre-industrial times when inequalities were extremely severe.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:57 | #

Chaucer, I think, explains medieval society well enough.

Anyway, the point that needs to be made is this: the middle-class is not a function of anything but intelligence, social stability and freedom.  Societal advancement is a function of the middle-class.

Applying this simple formula explains James’ association of the disappearance of the American middle-class and the disappearance of whites.  In other words, the politics of our time are rendering society less intelligent, less stable and less free.

But I am an irredeemable Conservative, in a British sense ... so what do I know?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 24 Oct 2006 03:46 | #

Furius you make the same mistake that people who continually go on about “third world poverty” make:

A peasant who is attached to the land—as were serfs—is more capable of responsibly siring children than a typical urbanite today due to the relative security of access to subsistence.

Call it what you want but when you gut people of their subsistence—as the modern managerial/mercantile class have done—you are vastly worse than a medieval lord or even Roman slave-owning citizen.  Human husbandry has never been practiced with such utter incompetence as now.

Posted by Voice on Tue, 24 Oct 2006 04:25 | #

James Bowery, you absolutely nailed that one.  I agree

Posted by Furius on Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:03 | #

Furius you make the same mistake that people who continually go on about “third world poverty” make:

Call it what you want but when you gut people of their subsistence—as the modern managerial/mercantile class have done—you are vastly worse than a medieval lord or even Roman slave-owning citizen.  Human husbandry has never been practiced with such utter incompetence as now.

Iran has a fertility rate that is roughly equal to white America’s. Where is the “modern managerial/merchantile” class to destroy Iran’s birthrate? In fact, the greatest fall in their birthrate has occured after the Islamic revolution.

In East Asia, birth-rates have been plummeting for generations even though immigration to most of those countries has been close to zero.

I think the focus on birth-rates as the fundamental cause of problems is misplaced. “Human husbandry” as you point out is clearly not the most important issue. The biggest issue is immigration. And immigration is not dependant solely on birth rates. Note that the US which has a birth rate that is almost twice the birth rate of Japan lets in 1.5 million immigrants a year whereas the Japanese barely let in a few thousand (if that).

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:36 | #

The focus isn’t on birth rates but on responsible parentage.  There are many people who are responsible parents in the third world, and there were many peasants who were responsible in the medieval world.  The situation that is untenable is the current one in which irresponsible parentage in industrialized societies is subsidized by taking responsible parents out of the gene pool.

It is to the point that a truly responsible person—responsible in the larger sense of preserving the gene pool—has to think seriously about promoting deliberate irresponsibility in parentage as a route to avoid putting the future at risk.

Words can’t describe the abomination this represents.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Nov 2006 05:05 | #

China “drops a bomb on currency markets.”