|
|
|
Salter contra homosexual marriage In response to the steadfast support for homosexual marriage from the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a DT thread-jockey named Hugh of Oxford offered the following gut reaction:
As so often with gut reactionaries, good instincts are liable to run out into sketchy assumptions at the slightest test. A homosexual who regularly pops up to debate his special interest on the DT threads responded with “How?”. Hugh did not answer. But any Salterian could have, and one did:
The response to this line of argument was, rather surprisingly, not that genetic interest is voodoo, which was how mention of it was received a few years back, but that the perception among sexually whole people that marriage has been violated and made cheap by its homosexualisation is just conjecture. The GI element may be becoming more workable in political discourse - something we used to say could never happen because of its abstruse nature. Comments:2
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 01:59 | # Aside: You know I remember you telling me that Martin Webster (?) fellow was a homo. What’s his thoughts on all this stuff? Are the fag boys into ethnonationalism in the homeland marching around for “rights” or are they pretty tame? I mean… We must address the fact that the “movement” is filled to the gills with queers. It’s my conjecture that they (one half of them anyway) are just successful and so they tend to rise wherever they decide to do so (no pun intended). I heard it was a pretty common joke to say, after Morrissey says something racist, that it’s no big deal because he’s just gay; implying that gays are over-represented in the movement over there. They certainly seem to be here. 3
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:03 | # To quote H.L.A. Hart “society is not a suicide club”. Hart thought that it was unthinkable to treat any human society as a suicide club. Instead we must assume that a society’s aim is to live and continue through time. Perhaps liberalism is implicitly aiming for the opposite outcome? Slow-motion suicide? Homosexuality is of course a death cult if fully embraced (it would be bad enough as a passing phase let alone a life-long orientation). When precisely do collective needs become more important than individual wants? For the liberal ideally never. And yes I know about Hart’s background… 4
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:11 | # Yes but how do we explain homosexual achievement then? 5
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:31 | # Isn’t the fact that nappy-headed niggers can marry English women a bigger threat to English EGI than English queers, who by definition, have no sexual interest in English breeding age females? P.S. As ever, English Moralism will no doubt turn this into a hair-splitting moral conundrum whereas for National Socialists the answer is simple: mongrels get sterilized and queers get the concentration camp. 6
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:57 | #
English Moralism is liberalism. As such, perhaps a more fitting question to ask is, Do adherents of English Moralism implicitly aim not for racial survival but for the social approval of vapid, bourgeois shitheads? 7
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:20 | # Just for fun let’s test the theory. Salter’s evaluation of EGI is based upon a calculation of child equivalent losses with the migration of distant people (i.e. Bantus) into the English homeland. What is the child equivalent loss incurred by the average Englishman with the marriage of say 10,000 sodomites? Or is gay marriage some form of further evolution of human populations to eusociality assuming of course that marriage will mean an increase in adoption? 8
Posted by daniel on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:23 | # Talk about fudgepackers, denouncing marriage for them, is usually a kind of meatless bone thrown to conservatives in order to placate and divert them as if serious matters are under consideration. Its the kind of “concession” that Fox News makes to Republican Voters (While it ignores violence against Whites and their life and death struggle). Queers are not just OK, let alone their marriage. There are an array of legitimate criticisms to be made of them. But do they rank up there in concern with other matters of White sovereignty? Clearly not. I get a case of the willies around them but can they make anyone go to a gay bar? Can they make your son become a queer? They cannot make me go and I am not interested - more women for me/us. Now, among the criticisms of queers, they have been co-opted by Jews, as one branch of the PC triad along with Blacks(non-White groups) and feminists, to attack White men. But to take them as antagonistic to White interests, by themselves, is to ignore, to fail to sort out Jewish, liberal and other anti-White backing of PC. It is also to ignore the fact that there are racially aware queers active on behalf of Whites, who make valid contributions; I don’t know their situation well, but they may be another group who may have less to lose and might work well in a clandestine or even in an open sense on behalf of Whites. At the same time, there are ultra macho heteros who are completely defensive of race mixing/race mixers; as well as otherwise endorsing practices destructive to Whites - for example, these sorts will compel insecure young men to do really stupid things (on behalf of Whites?) in order to prove that they are men enough and not queers. These sorts bother me way more than queers do. Women can be this way too - oh, he doesn’t like me, he must be queer. Oh, he isn’t willing to go on a suicide mission to defend my nigger-loving feminist pig life-style, must be a homo. In a word, they can incite toxic and headlong competition through anti-queer admonitions. Nevertheless, I’m pretty sure that under the rubric of White nationalism, marriage for queers is not going to be an issue. That marriage is, or should be, a model of normalcy and rigorously so - heterosexual - is a good point. That queers can recognize the genetic interests of Whites goes to show as well - while not approving of them, WN’s might do better to pick other fights and not waste an especially hard-line there, where a small percentage may be born with a strong inclination for whatever ecological reason. Maybe a show of support for the girls, who get a bit uptight about homos? hm - ok, No to gay marriage. And also a show of humaneness for the ladies, that queers who recognize our genetic interests and respect our institutions - are generally accountable - not be pilloried if they go about their lives with discretion. 9
Posted by hudson on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:04 | #
Even if they didn’t adopt, it could be like eusociality where they are like worker or soldier drones performing various functions.
10
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:04 | # “Gay marriage” is obviously a distraction from the major issues threatening the very foundations of Western Civ. That said, for WNs the real issue wrt gay marriage is the extent to which (traditionalist) Christianity ought to be the moral and cultural foundation of society. A Christian social order (as with any civilization) is all of a piece. It is based on a set of moral presuppositions ultimately codified into positive law. The proximate purpose behind gay marriage advocacy is to gain ‘equality’ for homos. For the homos themselves there are particular (esp financial) spousal benefits. The ultimate purpose of such advocacy by our non-homo enemies is to further the dechristianization of the West. Marriage is a sacrament. The positive laws pertaining to marriage are rooted in that sacramental understanding. To allow for homosexual marriage is to sever the already attenuated link between the traditional Christian worldview and the law. Is this a good thing from a racial perspective? I think not, and not only because I’m Christian. Christianity gives life great meaning. When life is seen to be transcendently meaningful, persons are more willing to subordinate selfish individual desires to collective needs. Indeed, I suspect that merely having children would cause one to adopt a more communal perspective on social life. Homos are notoriously selfish, and unconcerned about national futures. So are secular societies (one sees this reflected in the history of interest rates in the West: Europeans had longer time horizons when, ironically, their lifespans were much shorter). My views on the racial benefits of Christian traditionalism do not actually depend upon my Christian metaphysics. I would advocate a Christian social order even if I were secretly an atheist. Look at the US. There is a huge overlap between secularism, political liberalism, and white demographic decline. Christianity obviously must be internally theologically reformed (actually, cleansed of modernist heresies, like liberalism in all varieties). But it is more useful in the long run for WNs to try to coopt, or at least show their compatibility with, the faith, than to insist upon a (false) dichotomy between Christianity and white survival. 11
Posted by Randy Garver on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:42 | # Leon:
I wouldn’t comment except that yours is a pervasive and fallacious view which deserves refutation. Upon what scriptural justification do you ground the claim to a so-called “Christian social order”? Only a rare few individuals who call themselves Christians actually adhere to Biblical commandments. For example, those who accrue wealth and oppose slavery do so in direct opposition to Christ’s teachings. Let me know if you need chapter and verse citations. Leon:
True, but not the meaning most self-labeled “Christians” usually intend. The only true meaning of life, according to Christ’s teachings, is to serve God. Full stop. The only “collective needs” that a real Christian is commanded to subordinate their “selfish individual desires” for are Godly ones. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that neither you nor anyone you know who espouses Christianity-based “collective needs” are rending your finery, wearing sackcloth, and becoming itinerant fishers of men in order to exclusively serve the Lord. In that respect, Christianity, like Islam, is more accurately described as a death cult. One is commanded to subsume all earthly desires, to forgo all earthly pleasures, to defer all rewards until after death. Jesus quite explicitly explains that one’s rewards in heaven are inversely proportional to the rewards sought in life. This is by explicit definition an anti-life philosophy. Again, I’ll provide chapter and verse if requested. 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:46 | # Desmond, Given that the broad definition of “homosexual” allows for about seven times as many queer men as the narrow one that I quoted above, I’d say the loss of child equivalents by “normativising” homosexuality (it can’t be normalised), and taking grey-area males away from sexually normal relationships, would be rather large. Wouldn’t you? 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:51 | # Randy, For Jewish hyper-ethnocentrists, being practical, even completely materialist folk for whom there is no after-life and for whom “heaven” is the Age of Mosiac, it’s absolutely no problem to accept that “one’s rewards in heaven are inversely proportional to the rewards sought in life”. For a Christian, of course, it’s a gamble requiring belief in the Word, salvation everlasting, etcetera. But that’s because a European’s faith is not his nationalism (though one wonders sometimes about the potential of the old faith in that regard). 14
Posted by Silver on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:57 | # Garver,
You don’t need scriptural justification in order to advocate a “Christian social order.” (Did the apostles have scriptural justification?) I definitely support a Christian social order despite, strictly speaking, being an “atheist” of sorts. I mean, if it were somehow possible to examine my brain and identify that part that claims to believe in God, and compare the “the structure” of that belief to the structure of something I actually do believe, like say the force called gravity or the event called WWII, there would be a marked difference, and you would probably conclude that, no, this Silver fellow doesn’t actually believe in God. (If you did that to me father, on the other, you would most likely conclude that yes, he does believe in God.) But I have faith, or rather, practise faith in a God-like being that I’m happy to refer to as “God,” as well as to “support the church” and all that. Sure, the reasons I pick Christianity as the “vehicle” for my faith are basically temporal, it being the religion I was raised and which feels most comfortable to me, as well as forming part of an ethnocultural identity, but what’s so bad about that? Just because it’s possible to abandon your spiritual tradition doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a good idea to abandon it. (You know, it’s also possible to be a green-haired lesbian marxist with sleeve tattoos and an eyebrow ring, but it doesn’t follow that it’s necessarily a good idea to be one.)
You’re just nitpicking. If I had to guess, I’d say it’s just a way to dodge the burden the veracity of Haller’s statement places on conservatives who reject faith (like you). Speaking for myself, I’ve tried living as an atheist. Read all the books. Spent years on boards like infidels.org. I used to be appalled by the “irrationality” of religion, and at times even very angry about it. Now I’m appalled by what an idiot I was. Or, putting my own feelings aside, I can just compare the rubbish degenerate culture all around me today (the result of well over four decades of total rejection of faith and transcendence) and compare it to the dying embers of a former mighty culture in whose glow I was fortunate enough to be raised (yes, “racism” and all). Lol, there is no comparison. GW,
Yeah, well, if it does, I don’t think it’ll be because of statements like But marriage is not a lifestyle choice but the naturally arising, optimum condition for raising healthy children. It is, therefore, a genetic interest of our ethnic group and our race. Homosexuals have the same genetic interests as normal people, so the productive course for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike is to increase the status of marriage and not decrease it.</i. Rather it’ll be because of the hard work of activists who actually know how to communicate with people in a way that changes minds, which, I’m afraid, is not an ability I think you possess in abundance. I’ve accused some people here of committing the “race is wrong, therefore everything is wrong fallacy,” but while that’s a very common one, it’s far from the only one. GW (and other philosophes and geneticists) tend to fall prey to the “one fell swoop” fallacy. Hit people with a few choice facts, they believe, and they’ll come running to you with open arms. How could they not? You’ve just hit them with a truth that is truer than anything they have ever experienced before! Surely that will transform them posthaste into enthusiastic little racialists, full of being Being and Authenticity and all things nice!
15
Posted by daniel on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:45 | # Silver, you do not have to answer this question, but I am curious in the service of verifying my experience which has been that 1/4 Jews are still too defensive of Jewish interests to be looked upon as trustworthy allies. Maybe you would be a 1/4 Jew who betrays my experience to an extent - i.e., that you have a reasonable stance with regard to Whites? Mind you, it is not your pro-Christian argument that has me taking your being reasonable under consideration. In fact, if I were paranoid, that might just prove my point that Christianity serves Jewish interests. However, your practicing and having been raised in Christianity does mean that to some extent you do not identify as a Jew. Therefore, for the sake of orientation and hopefully some predictability, may we accurately assume that you are something like 3/4 European and 1/4 Jewish? 16
Posted by uh on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:20 | # Homosexual WNs are obviously not a threat, aren’t faggots, and do interesting work. Nevermind that I question the utility of all such “work”. Faggots are a huge social threat and have already added to the curtailment of white men’s ability to acquire and keep white women. If you haven’t gone out with a girl who had a token fag in tow, you haven’t gone out with a girl in two decades. Or if they don’t have token fags, they use one’s opinion of fags as a litmus test for accepting one as a mate, like abortion or a decent car. It’s just another warped way modern women raise reproductive cost making it altogether too difficult for us, arbitrarily depressing our numbers. Also, from what I’ve seen, about half of Swiss women, and a good third each of German and English women, are, or look exactly like, lesbians. Lesbianism or its appearance has become a fashionable escape route from mere unloveliness. This means many more “straight” women will have one or some number of “gay” friends whom one will, again, have to “accept” to qualify for her unreproductive favor. I think we all understand that homosexual WNs are good men who don’t make a show of their weirdness. And we all understand that the rest of them, and the popular cult of homosexuality founded by yidn (this case is particularly tight), are the real and ongoing threat to renewed racial cohesion. But the same could be said of many things which even Captainchaos would not have the balls to reverse ... Found this a while ago. Extreme, but there we are.
17
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:14 | # To make it perfectly clear to you, Silver, I am involved on the DT threads, primarily, not to change the public’s mind but to enlarge what can be said and to free journalists from speech control. Success is measured in the freedom of white ethnocentrists from censorship, and so to say what they want and what needs to be said. 18
Posted by uh on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:40 | #
This is well written but contains an instructive flaw, or careless construction: the pairing of “genetic interests” and “productive”. Of course the latter is meant informally and not to refer to industrial production. However, he is suggesting that reproductive interest is still as strong in homosexuals as in normal folk; this might be true psychologically, but cannot be true behaviorally, meaning they are not acting in their reproductive interest. That is, unless they are WNs, then we can assume they are acting in the spirit of Haldane’s “two brothers / eight cousins” scenario. Anyhow they certainly have not the same genetic interests as normal people — their bodies might want to perpetuate, they might analogically favor the ascendancy of the white race, but there it ends. These are people not after the perpetuation of their direct line, and for the most part not seeking to do so. And here is my point: that perhaps most homosexuals are defined by selfishness in a way others are not. They are a “closed-circuit” genetic machine, and their desires are more material (products) than genetic (reproduction). Here human culture again bypasses the quaint guidance of genes and finds ways to satisfy itself hedonically (adoption, civil rights) as opposed to open “open-circuit” evolutionary behavior.
19
Posted by uh on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:43 | #
Well, ground has definitely been gained there. I wonder though, do you go to your local pub, and if so, do you talk about ethnic genetic interests? 20
Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:28 | # Not only does homosexuality reduce reproductive fitness, it also increases disease burden. I try to discuss genetic interest with colleagues and family members and on various forums. My interlocutors usually seem too nonplussed to respond; I don’t know whether they take any note of it at all. But I’ve never been accused of being “racist” merely on account of discussing genetic interests. 21
Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:35 | # Guessedworker:
A useful aim but it seems that Ed West for one has - temporarily, I hope - lost his nerve. 22
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:55 | # OK, off topic (except in a general sense), but I repost a comment re Merkel I’d made a couple of days ago at The Economist, forgotten about, but which got a fair number of angry counter comments and replies (showing up as “yahoo updates”):
I was thinking “CRUSH the Left”, but thought that might get the comment removed. The problem with the white world today is precisely that there has been an inversion of the proper relations between liberty and authority. We have too much of the wrong kinds of liberty and authority, and thus, too little of the right kinds. Putting it simplistically, we need much more economic liberty, and much less personal liberty. In the old days (pre-WW1), there were very few industrial or commercial regulations, and, once the Industrial Rev got underway, the West had unbelievable levels of material advancement. At the same time, and reciprocally related to that very growth, the West had nothing remotely comparable to today’s “hedonistic” freedoms. You couldn’t just say anything you wanted (eg, insult the Church), do anything you wanted, fuck anything you wanted. Economic life was mostly rule-free, but the personal sphere was highly regulated (not always through formal statutes - though the informal regulations of personal life were ultimately reinforced by State power). The past century has witnessed the near total triumph of the liberal left. It is nearly impossible for industrial progress to be made (ie, regulations, or, more precisely, lack thereof, are why IT has been nearly the only (real, non-monetarily inflated or ‘bubbled’) growth area of the past quarter century in the West). Europe’s economic sclerosis is nearly solely due to statist economic interventionism, which may prove unreformable via democratic mechanisms. . On the other hand, God (er, “human rights”) forbid we should tell fags or miscegenators or alternative lifestylers that they can’t do what or whom they want, can’t marry or adopt whom they want, can’t say or profane what they want! Economic libertarianism (of a racially guided variety) + moral, cultural and racial authoritarianism = the only method of Western recrudescence. But can such a new dispensation be realized without authoritarian (probably fascist) imposition? Alas, I think not.
23
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:22 | # Mick, I thought Ed ‘s article was pretty good:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100166268/the-real-history-of-british-racism/ The guy is thinking about “arguments” against diversity and anti-racism, but he still hasn’t resolved the fundamentals like who is the in-group, why liberty is not the ultimate human interest, what is the ineluctable outcome of demographic replacement ... I have prodded him a little way along the road, not directly on these questions but in the direction of questioning the liberal polity. We will see how he develops. Meanwhile, take a look at the thread. There is WN. This is what I mean by enlarging the sayable. I’ve now picked up ten DT bans - poor Joe Piggott bought it on Tuesday. But he did his bit for his country! 24
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 22 Jun 2012 01:41 | # I see Mr. Haller is still producing his basic formula of Jesus plus Hayek - thus we just need the ‘right’ type of individualistic hyper-liberalism - to offer this as a ‘solution’ is not even to start to fully grasp the problem. Given this context what about Mr. Haller’s other comments on Germany… Germany is economically doing well yet has a more extensive and generous welfare-state/social model than anywhere in the USA, how prey-tell does this obvious contradiction with Republican/Libertarian boiler-plate (all governmental action is evil unless in support of maximalist free-market policies blah, blah, blah) escape Mr. Haller’s keen analytical eye? Perhaps the devil is a little more in the detail than he is capable of grasping or wishes to acknowledge? Equally Sweden and Norway etc., are hardly in penury yet also have quite extensive welfare-systems/social models. Shocking I know. As an ethno-communitarian who could rationally choose the USA over anywhere in Scandinavia, if they had to live out an ordinary life as the typical Mr. or Mrs. Average of each location; i.e. they couldn’t buy their way out (into some ‘gated community’ etc.), of the extremely rapid change to post-Western status in the USA? Denmark is a ‘socialist hellhole’ for Glenn Beck’s fans. Perhaps, but infinitely preferable to Texas, California et al., as they are now - let alone in 10, 20, 30 years hence. They represent a far deeper circle of hell, yes? Or perhaps not - some people might love the endless possibilities to enjoy diversity and a full ‘free-market’ of cultural norms, life-style options, languages spoken, religious practices et al.? Perhaps in keeping with ‘cafeteria Catholicism’ the priests could go a bit further and fuse elements from Voodoo and the Juju man into an exciting hybrid? An even more pressing question for the curious of mind might be to think of the possible linkages between the ideological impulses behind the formation of the broader USA socio-economic model, as promoted by Mr. Haller, and the remarkable political and cultural weakness of the Republic to massive demographic change in double-quick time? Sure there might be a lot of bluster and hot-air but little substantive resistance. But this time we also have an added dose of the F-word from Mr. Haller – despite a previous, relatively in-depth, discussion at MR as to its fairly disastrous historical record, its rather dubious model of social realities and the link between its philosophical mistakes and its empirical failures. Now of course one might disagree with such an analysis but so far no-one has offer an substantive alternative reading of that ideology. I’m sure GW would be happy for a serious debate about models of politico-social ontology etc., to be had (note - not pitiful ‘special pleading’ type claims that certain historical persona were not true Scotsman etc.). 25
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:05 | #
“F-Word”? “free-maket”? I’m lost. 26
Posted by Randy Garver on Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:55 | # Silver:
Perhaps you don’t NEED one, but then you’ve created a situation wherein you’re espousing a faith which you don’t actually believe, and which carries along with it certain doctrines and values that the more rigidly adherent may promote and which you might not be so enthusiastic to embrace, such as the rejection of science, reason, and non-divine authority. Twenty-first century America provides a front row seat to this spectacle.
1 Peter 2:18: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” 1 Timothy 6:1 “All slaves should show full respect for their masters so they will not bring shame on the name of God and his teaching.” Ephesians 6:5-7 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people,”
Is there anyone here even remotely in favor of abiding by Jesus’ commandments from the Sermon on the Mount: (Matthew 5: 39-41) But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
I think you’re juxtaposing an outcome (antiquarian western civilization), with a few of its ingredients (historical religion). Pining for the world Grandpa lived in isn’t sufficient to bring it back. Though I haven’t been exposed to much of current “atheist culture”, I can certainly imagine that it might tend to favor libertine morals. Is this an inevitable consequence of atheism itself, or merely the result of its adherents finding themselves on the outside of traditional societal institutions? I’m willing to bet that if pressed, you could pen a list of compelling reasons to reject modern “rubbish degenerate culture” that does not include a single biblical reference. I think one could reasonably argue that a reverent and transcendent worldview can be constructed without the assistance of organized religion. You yourself demonstrate this precept through your posting history which invariably argues a from a position of reason. I also favor traditionalism from a basis of logic and reason grounded on evolutionary biology. What’s the alternative? The Marxist and the religionist are similar in that their justification for commanding compliance is the odious “Because I said so!”. The rationalist retains the capacity to construct a far more compelling argument. Perhaps I’m simply too dull to imagine it, but I just don’t see how one can effectively preach a rationalist worldview to a society which is simultaneously being encouraged to embrace anti-rationalism. 27
Posted by Silver on Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:27 | # Randy,
No denying that’s an obvious risk. I’m relying on reasonable people being able to prevail. Also, let’s keep this straight: I’m espousing a religious tradition, not all of whose tenets and dogmas I care much for. It’s not as crazy as it might sound. Jews do this all the time. It doesn’t seem to have prevented them from embracing the 21st century (although, good grief, there is an alarmingly large number of nuts in their midst).
Of course I could. But you’re not being fair to me: I’m not resorting to biblical references. I was being technical when I said I lack an actual belief in “God,” one that you could reasonably compare to my belief in any number of things that we can all agree are true (again: gravity, WWII, 2+2=4 and the like). Belief in “God” is different for me because I’m nowhere near as convinced. But I do have faith, if I’m permitted to define it as an act of will. It’s not based on nothing. It’s based on the real world effect it has on my experience of life. Faith, I’m convinced, is a very powerful force. My life has unquestionably changed for the better since I again began practicing faith. You can call it irrational if you like but then you tell me how I’m supposed access/achieve this state without faith in this “divine power.” Try as I might I haven’t been able to do it without it. It’s a bit like trying to achieve the effects of cocaine without consuming cocaine. I can’t do it and I don’t know anyone that can. Perhaps you could rig me up to some kind of “brain machine” that could stimulate this state but that’s hardly practical now is it. At the end of the day I’m living better than an atheist lives, and both the atheist and I know it. That’s why the atheist gets much more upset when I sneer at his way of life than I get when an atheist sneers at mine. Anyway, I’m gonna pull a Haller and promise to reply to the rest later. I’m gonna drink myself silly now and go watch Greece v Germany soccer (“The Austerity Derby” lol).
29
Posted by anon on Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:40 | #
Do you mean the religion of political correctness and the doctrine of the blank slate? Religiosity is innate and doesn’t require an actual religion. It may well be better to channel religiosity through an adaptively designed religion than leaving it to run riot into random channels. Similar to how teenage male aggression is innate and should be channeled into sport until they grow out of it. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:57 | # Daniel: Greece versus Goldman Sachs And Britain versus Goldman Sachs: 32
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 23 Jun 2012 01:26 | #
I see the Gramscian termites continue to attack what is, in essence, the glue that used to hold Western civilization together. I’m sure Mr. Haller shakes his head in frustration at how ignorant so many “intellectuals” can get when it comes to a rational worldview. That said, a very relevant question is: Why do so many “White Nationalists” join in with the Jews and Fags with their anti-Christianity venom? The only conclusion I can come up with is either WNs are stupid or forums such as MR are thoroughly infiltrated/saturated by “sophisticated” trollish anti-white ADL/SPLC type apparatchiks. 33
Posted by daniel on Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:05 | # “Jim O’Neill, the Goldman Sachs banker touted as a future Governor of the Bank of England, would want to change the Bank’s mandate if he got the job. Whoever gets the job will become what has been described as the most powerful unelected official in the UK.” 34
Posted by daniel on Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:12 | # Comment by Ian Stuart: “Most countries try to avoid having the poachers turn gamekeeper.” 35
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:53 | # OK, this is serious and non-partisan. CAN MR PLEASE GET A BETTER SPAM FILTER? 36
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:39 | # OK, off topic but ... The following is an EXCELLENT article on the euro, defending it as a “second-best” proxy for what is the optimal monetary regime, namely a 100% reserves commodity money (preferably gold standard). I have always thought that the slight bit of fiscal discipline engendered by the euro was indeed its chief selling point, and this brilliant author, a leading economist in the “Austrian” tradition whose major book on the history and theory of money I have recommended to the (admittedly extremely economically ignorant) MR community previously, does the work of demonstrating that intuition. http://mises.org/daily/6069/An-Austrian-Defense-of-the-Euro#note46 The article, moreover, is properly anti-Anglo-Saxon in castigating the terrible actions taken over the past decade by both the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. The real heroes are the Germans for hanging tough on the need for the rest of Europe to market liberalize its economies (note of course, the cardinal error that classical and neoliberals make, unfortunately including this author to some extent, in failing to distinguish between free movements of goods and people, or of conflating necessary intranational labor flexibility with international labor mobility - but such errors of “political economy” in no way invalidate the core economic arguments, and can be easily refuted both theoretically and legislatively). The author does make some foolish comments about the “far right”, esp Marine Le Pen’s call for the return to the franc, but this merely reveals his somewhat diminished political understanding (though in fairness, he does acknowledge and laud the resentment against the tyranny of EU/Brussels that underlies at least some rightist anti-euro sentiment). I myself agree completely with his call for a return to a European continental (and ultimately global) free market in money (100% reserves gold standard). However, I also wish to see the euro destroyed, though I concede its economic utility in promoting at least some necessary austerity (better: “budgetary discipline”) in the over-profligate European welfare states (I repeat: that France has decisively chosen Keynesian fiscal bloatedness over (German) economic rationality and retrenchment has guaranteed its economic destruction; insofar as the new leftists will do nothing to stem its accelerating Islamification - through births and cultural/psychic conquest, as well as continuing immigration imperialism - the anti-free market French fools have opted for mass poverty as well as national suicide; let the rest of Europe be warned, and encouraged to put a cordon sanitaire around this primary source of Western evil since 1789). The euro should be destroyed, even at the risk of returning to monetary nationalism/inflationism, not for economic reasons, but political ones. The euro is part of a larger transfer not only of national but racial sovereignty to the EU. The EU, however, is decidedly anti-white, and is a main mechanism for the destruction of the racial character of Europe (not that individual governments have been much better, it must be conceded). As such, the highest priority for European nationalists in EU countries must be getting out of the EU (assuming, as seems to be the case, there is no possibility of transforming the ideological character of Brussels, from anti- to pro-white). I suspect that a return to national currencies would represent the crossing of an important psychological threshold which could inspire further nationalist action, the most important aspect of which is obviously ending the alien colonization of Europe via immigration. The keys to European renaissance: 1) racial homogeneity 2) a private property / hard money economic order 3) public, conservative Christianity 37
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:46 | # Here is a better link: http://mises.org/daily/6069/An-Austrian-Defense-of-the-Euro Really, people, though this article seems to assume a bit of basic monetary knowledge, you should study it carefully, esp those who ignorantly or willfully repeat basic economic errors. 38
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:20 | # Really, people, though this article seems to assume a bit of basic monetary knowledge, you should study it carefully, esp those who ignorantly or willfully repeat basic economic errors. Except that you keep repeating yours despite instruction. When you can outsmart Ezra Pound on money or point me to someone who can (and it ain’t Lord Dumbass), then we’ll start listening to you. Hard money is a banker’s wet dream. All the gold on earth could vanish and nobody would be any poorer. Don’t anybody listen to this douche on money. 39
Posted by Silver on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:33 | #
“Private property” must be Haller’s euphemism for “no taxation.” Otherwise it makes little sense to list it alongside other radical reforms he deems necessary for a European renaissance since European economies already rest on a foundation of private property. As for “hard money,” have you had a chance to flip through the book on the subject I kindly uploaded for you? Or are you still getting around to it, the way you’re still getting around to accounting for the evidence that U.S. growth was substantially slower during the late 19th century (Golden Age of American capitalism, to hear you tell it) than during the Keynesian postwar period? 40
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 02:18 | # Keynesian economics works - in fact it’s the optimal economic system - but only if it is applied to a nation that has a population of productive citizens; unlike that of the USA which has a large and growing segment of the population dependent on the welfare state. What the Left, led by Obama, is doing is applying a virolent, mutated form of Keynesian economics, designed to strip the wealth of White Americans in order to “balance” or equalize the disparity between the wealth of the black and white races. Some call it racial socialism. I call it an attack on white productivity. Of course in the longer term , the inevitable result of racial socialist economics will be a decline in productiveness thus turn the USA into a third world cesspool. I.e.,why will whites work hard only support a bunch of knee-grows? Let’s face it, in a multiracial society socialism breeds lack of incentive in productive whites. Period. Moreover, capitalism is the white man’s economic system. That;s why blacks hate it. On a level playing field, blacks can’t compete in a capitalist system. VIA CAPITALISM! 41
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 08:31 | # I simply reiterate my comment #38. The economic ignorance of you people is appalling. I tried to help by linking an excellent piece; why don’t you read it before mouthing off? I would love to see where you think this eminent economist errs (be careful, though: I assure you he is far more intelligent, as well as obviously more knowledgeable in the field of monetary theory, than any of us; his magnum opus Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, is truly awesome in its comprehensive mastery of every aspect of the subject under examination). Austrian monetary theory is by far its strongest point. I am not interested in further studies in macroeconomic monetary theory (specific areas of finance as they cross my radar, perhaps; I just bought Sebastian Mallaby’s history of hedge funds) because I have studied the Austrians and they are clearly correct. I’m not really interested in studying the Ptolemaic system, either, and don’t have the time to indulge such antiquarianism. Time has a value; how we spend it, opportunity costs. Silver, why don’t you give me a short version of the book you uploaded (an article making the basic points)? Then I can judge whether the fuller version would be worth reading. Unless I’m being paid to do a critique, I’m not, eg, going to read anything by a buffoon (actually, purveyor of crude sophistries) like Paul Krugman. There is simply too much in my own specific fields of interest (which are already very broad) that I need to get through.
Statement is beyond stupid; indeed, the truth is exactly the opposite (as Ron Paul understands, and you don’t). Bankers love fractional reserve, and the whole Fed system. It allows them easy profits through constant inflation (after the govt, they are the first recipients of ‘fiat’ money; ordinary citizens are the last, and thus get stuck with devalued dollars). It also serves as a backstop to bail out their stupidity (and esp cupidity). Hard money literally removes the theft aspect of banking, the ability to create debts out of nothing. Please read something (like the article I linked to).
Totally wrong. First, I was speaking of the ideal components in brief of Western survival (obviously there are many sub-components, like high levels of military spending, pro-natalist policies, eugenics, routine hangings, patriotic curriculae, morals legislation, etc). Second, it is idiotic to claim that Europe today possesses anything like a private property order. In France, 56% of GDP is already consumed by French government (I’m assuming that stat refers to total French govt spending, though I do not know that: it might only refer to spending by the Parisian national state). At what point do we speak of a transition from capitalism to socialism? Note also that direct govt spending only refers to the size of govt, not its scope (ie, interventionist regulation of private activity, which is everywhere much greater than mere state size alone). France can in no realistic way be called a capitalist country (neither can nearly any other place, including the US, imo; not sure about Monaco, Caymans, Lichtenstein, etc). By “private property” I mean a society with minimal interference in private commerce; by “minimal”, as I have explained in the past at some length, I mean only such interference as is necessary to maintain the system of capitalism itself, considered over a long span of time (thus, within “minimal” we would find national security, racial legislation, natalist and eugenicist laws, environmental protections, morals legislation - but no classical strictly economic interferences, such as price fixing, labor codes, welfare provision, monetary (interest rate) manipulation, etc).
Yes, I recall your making this erroneous claim. First, I am disinclined to believe your “evidence”. Economic stats are notoriously unreliable unless informed by correct theory. Austrian “growth” is an absolutely different animal from Keynesian “growth”. If I break a window and get it repaired, Keynesians call that “growth”, whereas Austrians (properly) call it a loss. I would have to do an in depth examination of your preferred author’s methodology before even assenting to his findings (let alone taking the next step of disagreeing on their interpretation). Second, if by a classical understanding of “growth” it is still fair to say that the postwar period saw greater growth than the USA 19th century, that might be due to either a) the huge rates of “growth” recorded as a result of the rebuilding of Europe postwar (which in reality was merely a restoration of the economic status quo ex ante, and thus cannot be assumed to have been new growth, which was what we saw throughout the Industrial Revolution; or b) the fact that growth builds on itself, and thus can occur - in the short term - independent of any but the most severe (eg, communism) recent changes in economic ideology and legislation. The 20th century saw tremendous rates of scientific and technological advance, which are at the base of real economic growth. Those advances were cumulative, having built on earlier advances. One certainly cannot attribute to Keynesian economic interventions in otherwise natural commercial relations the reality of scientific progress! But such progress has mostly positive economic effects. Given that knowledge is rarely lost, especially in the modern world, it stands to reason that human mastery of physical reality will constantly increase (albeit at different rates depending upon the unpredictable occurrence of new increases in scientific knowledge), and thus that, ceteris paribus, economies should constantly be growing in prosperity (that they have not done so is due to Keynesian-inspired, as well as socialistic, governmental misallocations/waste of capital: eg, stealing taxes from productive whites to redistribute to parasitical blacks, the net effect of which is not only the loss of any “value-added” aspect of the welfare “investment”, but the negative (re)production of yet more parasites; or stealing assets from productive businesses to prop up or bail out failures). Therefore, though I am sceptical that real growth was greater in the postwar period than in the 19th century, this claim might be true. But even if it is, that in no way supports the claim the Keynesian macroeconomic “management” is somehow more conducive to growth than laissez-faire. Correlation does not equal causation (one of my heroes, Pat Buchanan, routinely makes this error in discussing trade policy: “the US grew wealthy under 19th century protectionism”, he says, as though we may automatically infer that protectionism contributed to that wealth increase merely because it was in place at a time of tremendous growth, which was in reality due to the broader laissez-fairist regime). The real issue is whether postwar growth would have been still greater under laissez-faire than Keynesianism, and the answer must be unambiguously ‘yes’. Thanks to Mises, we know this from correct theory. But, for those ignorant of Austrian theory, we also know this from the recent historical record. Yes, there was a huge postwar economic boom throughout the industrialized world (how much of this was due to rebuilding efforts, we don’t know; note, however, that rebuilding economies following devastations, like rebuilding lost physical muscle mass following injuries, is always easier than the initial building up). But that boom started petering out already in the 60s, and crashed in the 70s. Why? Elementary! It was in the Sixties that both the “Dominions” and Western Europe saw huge expansions in both domestic welfare states, and monetary interventions (esp in the US, particularly after the closing of the gold window in 1971; the massive dollar inflation which followed was perfectly predictable by Austrian theory). Since the 70s, when the effects of the capital misallocations set in motion by the 60s legislation really started to be realized, the West has had a terrible growth record (and this despite ongoing scientific advances). Indeed, were it not for some slight Keynesian reverses during the Reagan, Thatcher, and, ironically, Schroeder administrations (to name the biggest economies; others, like Kiwis, and the Canadians more recently, have also made tiny pro-capitalist reforms; actually, New Zealand’s reforms under Finance Minister Roger Douglas in the 80s were extremely impressive), the only “growth” the West would have experienced over the past half-century would have been from asset sales to foreign investors (Japs, Arabs, more recently, Chinese). A final point, related to scientific advance, is that it was the 20th century that saw the real transformation from agricultural to industrial societies. In 1900, most Americans still worked in agriculture. As vast numbers were able to move off the farms (note: my family hadn’t had farmers in it since the 18th century), there was a tremendous injection of intelligence into the general workforce, and huge concomitant rates of growth (which would have been much higher without the Fed-created Great Depression, and assorted New Deal idiocies). This is always the case when a nation moves from agriculture to industry. But those rates do not keep going forever. The ag to industry growth rate jump is a one time phenomenon. Once the transition has been made, growth is slower going, and must be made through painfully acquired improvements in technology or industrial efficiency. That’s why I keep admonishing that the only hope for the West (and Japan - indeed, Japan perfectly refutes your idiotic hypothesis of Keynesian superiority: once it had made the transition from ag to industry, as well as rebuilt postwar, it only continued its growth as long as it remained substantially capitalist; as soon as it began experimenting with massive Keynesianism, as it has over the past two decades, its economy has all but stopped growing, despite global scientific advances) to get over its current economic travails is to legislate a massive, unprecedented DE-socialization agenda, a gigantic return to capitalism. That is our only ‘freebie’ anymore, given that we have industry, have infrastructure, have telecommunications, are educated (at least to the extent of our declining cognitive abilities), and have long allowed for meritocracy (I could add, and have substantially exploited our resource bases, though there is always some room for growth there, too, as we see with the current US natural gas boom).
I agree with everything here except the unnecessary first sentence. Please explain what Keynesianism is, and how it “works”. 42
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:26 | # I don’t have time today to respond properly but a couple of thoughts: (i) Western growth has been ‘poor’ since the 70’s - and from the mid 70’s to today the dominant theme of political life has been the embrace of neo-liberalism especially in the Anglo-sphere - all that “government and collective public action is inherently corrupt/misguided/inefficient” stuff along with “the free-market is always the optimal solution to life, the universe and everything”. Why then have these neo-liberals and their 30 odd years of policy making been so poor at actually working as they would (and still do) predict they should? I actually think these neo-liberal policies do work precisely as they should from the perspective of those that promote them but their goal is rather different than promotion of any general good/welfare. It funny when self-described conservatives ascribe all manner of vices to those they dislike, yet oddly only ascribe virtue to those they agree with. All of this double-think despite claiming to be ‘realistic’ about the human condition and rightly suggesting all those vices and virtues, like greed, selfishness, etc., are universal features/potentialities in everyone. Except when they aren’t. (ii) science and technology are the real drivers of economic growth? I’m shocked Mr. Haller, but surely it is doing endless casino-like speculation upon speculations with credit default swaps and the like? Wall Street is where the ‘masters of the universe’ reside and isn’t their business model of responsible risk-taking is to be admired by all? The increasing financialization of the US economy is obviously a good thing and massively profitable for those involved. Most of all for the taxpayer - that fairly recent and rather massive ‘blank-check’ bail-out why it’s the free-market at it’s best, yes? Come on making things aka ‘metal bashing’ is so 19th century don’t you think? Oh I’m shocked - people attempt to rig the game so they can never lose and when allowed to do so they do - why don’t they act like good little free-market Hayekians or Nozickians instead of like Adam Smith’s capitalists? “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public…” But never ever do they, the ‘masters of the universe’ behave in this way in corporate America or on Wall Street…we can trust them. If for no other reason because the invisible hand is an invariant ‘iron-law’ of human affairs that always delivers the goods. Why only collective public action is corrupt! Not that such an attitude is self-serving bullshit, obviously. (iii) as we know from ‘correct’ theory X would always have occurred says Mr. Haller? Pity poor grubby empirical reality when compared to such ‘correct views’ observed from the elevated Platonic heights, eh? The scientific method isn’t really your thing is it Mr. Haller? Not a shock that you have a theologically ‘trained’ mindset - seemingly across all topics. 43
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:28 | # Leon,
I’ll keep it simple simply because I’m of the hoi polloi class - not an expert in the feild of economics. Not even close. So to answer your question as best I can at the monent: Keynesianism is a set of economic theories advanced by John Maynard Keynes. How it is supposed to work, in a nutshell, goes something like this: When the private sector business cycle goes into recession, the Federal Government will stimulate employment by injecting and directing money into either public work projects and or into select sectors of the economy in order to artificially prop up/stimulate business activity so as to keep them at an even keel during a business cycle downturn. The benifits are obvious: it, at least in theory, keeps prices and employment relatively stable thus maintains social stability which in turn keeps human suffering at a minimum. Conversely, during a upswing in the private sector economy, the added revenue to the Federal Gov. via increased tax receipts are supposed to pay off the debt incurred during the previous downturn. Well, of course in the real world Keynsianisn hasn’t worked according to plan. Our politicians deviated for the plan and keep spending money well beyond what the government is taking in - even during good times. One enevitable result (there are many) of runaway deficit spending is all the USD denominated assets the common folks worked so hard to accumulate are being rapidly depreciated. Life savings sublimating. POOF! Wiemar repeating itself? or worse?!? At any rate, the global economic system is an extremely complex system. To predict what the economic environment will be like two years from now is more difficult than accurately predicting how many hurricanes will hit the USA in the year 2014. The weather, economics, and human nature are fractal systems subject to chaos theory; thus impossible to accurately predict which direction they will turn. There are simply too many know and unknown variables. Then there is massive non-White “cheap labor” that enters into all this hot mess .... but I digress…. ——- And there’s this:
“The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, the UN’s special representative for migration has said. Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.” more…
44
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:58 | # I think it is fair to say that most of us non-Scandinavians that have been fortunate enough to get to know the region well view it overall as an incredibly seductive place. Mind you, I refer not so much to sheer pulchritude as to its broad social and cultural features and particularly its implicit ethno-communtarianism (or its high ‘in-group’ collective solidarity if one prefers). In American terms, right-wingers view the allure of a Sweden or Denmark as dangerous and misleading, with wretched enslaved proletarian drones somehow managing to masquerade, year after year, as extremely happy, well-adjusted communitarians that generally top any human development and welfare index despite their non-freedom. And what’s not to like, one might ask? Look around at these societies and you will observe a generous and well-funded welfare state, an almost total lack of poverty or serious deprivation, balanced by intelligent and cleverly focused privatization in all kinds of unexpected places, impressive social cohesion and relative equality, the rule of law, some of Europe’s more effervescent and non-moribund right-wing ‘populist’ parties (that are actually electorally successful, particularly in Denmark), the ability to power through global economic meltdowns without even getting a ponytail in a twist, and by far the most important factor enjoying profoundly deep and widespread social-capital. Now can the Americans that implicitly or explicitly want to see the notion of the future of Europe looking anything like contemporary America (culturally, sociologically, economically, demographically, politically etc.) or indeed any version of the America past - please get a passport and do some extensive travelling and broaden their parochial horizons or better still shut the fuck up! The USA is, from an ethnocentric perspective, a totally failed state, a disastrous polity, an utterly awful example of a not-so-slow ‘slow-motion’ societal car-crash. Perhaps that glaring reality could be acknowledged then the question is what precise features of American socio-cultural and political life have facilitated this developmental trajectory? It’s much much more than one simple, or simple-minded, ‘exogenous’ cause – it’s also largely endogenously generated. The death of an individual arising from an infection with a pathogen causally also involves the failures of their own immune system to successfully fight the infection, not simply the outside agents contribution to that eventuality. It’s a dynamic push-pull system. I want the future of Europeans to look a hell of a lot more Danish or Swedish that American. Perhaps some here seriously disagree? I think my instincts are right on this topic as I’m a non-liberal, hence don’t believe in the ideology of Americanism. America in this regard is a chillingly ‘bad example’ that Europeans must heed. Again can anyone seriously disagree? Now please our dear American friends don’t try and bullshit we Euros at MR – personally I’ve experienced quite a bit of both America and continental Europe. Now who in their right mind would chose Texas over the Øresund region? Not cherry picking the best bits of each place but as a whole, a socio-cultural and economic totality, right now and in the foreseeable future? If you go for Texas I think everyone will be able to draw their own conclusions. OK my vote - Øresund. P.S. One of the genuine tragedies of modern England, in particular, is its almost unique vulnerability (due to both linguistic and historical reasons) to American ideas, tropes, culture, ways of being etc. For life on the Isles to improve we (both Celts and Anglos) must become far more European instead of half-baked, poorly executed parody Americans (which is sadly what we are right now). For the American ‘way of life’ equals a ‘way of death’ for any authentic and robust European way of being. Carl Schmitt recognized the danger of such ‘spaceless universalism’ for Europeans. Sadly his political answer to the problem was also tragically wrong. But that is getting far too ‘off-topic’. 45
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:17 | # Bankers love fractional reserve, and the whole Fed system. Yes they do. Did I say they didn’t? You’re a fucking one trick pony. I’m so glad I moved past my Lew Rockwell phase. Fucking tard. 46
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:18 | # ALL THE GOLD ON THE PLANET COULD DISAPPEAR AND NOBODY WOULD BE ANY POORER! 47
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:27 | # (as Ron Paul understands, and you don’t). Oh I understand what Ron Paul thinks he understands. It allows them easy profits through constant inflation (after the govt, they are the first recipients of ‘fiat’ money; ordinary citizens are the last, and thus get stuck with devalued dollars). Then explain why the fuck creditors get wiped out during inflationary periods? If the amount of goods increases and the volume of money doesn’t increase explain what happens to the value of money? You have no idea how credit creation works, how the overnight clearance market works, how the target rate works and how banks actually maintain reserve levels. Banks credit credit. Mr. Head of the Fed doesn’t do shit except coordinate with Mr. Head of the Treasury to ensure smooth operation. Banks create credit and seek reserves afterwards. For the Fed to really have an effect and actually “inflate” anything anyway Bernake would literally have to print at about 4 TIMES the rate he is printing now. You have read a couple books by ONE FUCKING GROUP OF PEOPLE (that are IDEOLOGUES - real conservatives aren’t ideologues [or kikes]) and you have successfully confirmed your bias. Well done. Apparently, in your warped mind, inflation is a debtor’s and creditor’s paradise! I don’t see the downside. Hard money literally removes the theft aspect of banking, the ability to create debts out of nothing. Hard money that ISN’T INTEREST FUCKING FREE does no such thing Leon. Historically, even literal hard money (coinage) wasn’t ever able to perform this function. Power is even more important than money. Please read something (like the article I linked to). Please kill yourself. 48
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 15:03 | # Hard money literally removes the theft aspect of banking, the ability to create debts out of nothing. How the fuck are second and third order debts normally created anyway? By worthless bits of paper bro. By gold. By anything. Unless we are in a pure barter situation anytime money is created, debt is created. They represent the trust in the community. Money is a barometer of social trust. It is a claim on the community at large. It is totally abstract debt created out of nothing. Declaring that gold (or whatever other specie you desire) is valid to pay off debts is creating debt of nothing (gold is worthless in and of itself)! If all the gold disappeared off the earth there would simply be some missing jewelry and some fucked up high-end stereo equipment. In fact, even in a hard money situation, the value of money isn’t “pegged” anywhere. Productivity + social trust is really the determining factor of the “value” of money which is really just a measure of confidence. 49
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:13 | # The cult of individualistic liberty and the arrogant militancy of the pseudo-democratic, quasi-egalitarianism implicit in the idea that everyone is equally capable of perusing ‘happiness’ for themselves without ‘interference’ (actually more properly understood as both intra and inter-generational guidance) has ultimately engendered the key figure of our hyper-liberal age: post-modern mass man. He is self-centred, semi-educated (at best), conscious of all of his individual rights (but not of any duties). As a ‘self-authored’ and ‘autonomous’ agent he is thus rendered incapable of and unwilling to submitting to direction of any kind (even if in his own best interests). Mass culture as provided by the holy of holies (the ‘free-market’) is generally trite, utterly ahistorical and pro-actively stupefying; it enshrines material possessions rather than the best of human values and genuinely life-affirming virtues and, worst of all, it generates a false assurance that tomorrow the world will be still richer, ampler, more perfect, as if it enjoyed a spontaneous, inexhaustible power of increase. That allied with a ‘can-do’ attitude produces the delusion that no problems of individual or collective human life remain insurmountable or insoluble - an extremely child-like view. Actually that’s unfair to children – they don’t tend to be quite that dumb. The epicentre, of course, for this wondrous view of life is the ‘land of the free’ – a political experimental grounded, from the off, in a species of utopian liberalism. Don’t kill the messenger. Read Tom Sunic or another serious figure on the ‘New Right’ if you don’t believe me. 50
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:36 | # Until he can understand the Classic Sparkle he won’t understand Sunic or anything from the New Right. 51
Posted by Brady on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:50 | # If gold is uniquely good as money, then its disappearance would make people poorer. 52
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:36 | # If gold is uniquely good as money, then its disappearance would make people poorer. My point exactly. It isn’t uniquely good as money. It really isn’t good for money at all. What a waste digging the shit outta the ground. It is unreliable and it puts us at the mercy of mining operations and human frailty when controlling its supply. The money supply needs to be controlled properly and this is done most easily (although still not the easiest thing to do in the world) with fiat paper currency. It needs to be INTEREST FREE. We need a DEBT JUBILEE now. We need LAND REDISTRIBUTION now. We need PLENTIFUL FIAT CURRENCY now. Gold is none of those things. Gold is the banker’s best friend (an *even better friend* than the Federal Reserve and the libertarians summum malum: fractional reserve banking). 53
Posted by Brady on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:41 | # Right. This is what the debate is about. Whether gold is uniquely good as money, whether it’s better or worse than alternatives as money, etc. As for plentiful, interest free fiat currency, why would it have or maintain value if it’s plentiful and interest free? And if it is the most easily controlled by a central authority, why wouldn’t it be abused by or corrupt the central authority? 54
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:29 | # As for plentiful, interest free fiat currency, why would it have or maintain value if it’s plentiful and interest free? What does interest have to do with it you say? The issuers of currency should be the community and that shouldn’t “loan” at usurious rates. Usury is slavery. Plentiful means that there is enough to facilitate commerce and lending to encourage small business. Enough to prevent the situation where that we have now (inflated commodity prices due to inflated speculation occurring concurrently with deflationary pressure on the actual money supply for the man in the street). And if it is the most easily controlled by a central authority, why wouldn’t it be abused by or corrupt the central authority? It depends. There needs to be centralization for major projects (energy, defense, etc.) but there should also be local lending controlled by the local community à la mutual credit. Still, actual productivity is most important. Who knows best who is a productive member of a community besides the other members of the community? This should also encourage more local, small scale enterprise which I consider to be far more important than the mega-capitalism that prevails. 55
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:37 | # To answer your question: Value is maintained by changing the definition of value. What is valuable is production and predicted future production. Slightly deprecating currency facilitates activity/productivity. You create a different market for creating savings. People buy other things that retain value. The point is that it becomes “expensive” to hoard cash and thereby increase its value. Holding onto the “debt” of the community should be expensive. The point of currency, after all, is to facilitate trade and not create some stalemate or war to bid up or down the price of money. The community actively creating (which is the point of man’s existence anyway) and building and doing things (the very definition of “community”) is value. Money is worthless paper designed to make the community be valuable. 56
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:43 | # Just try to think… Money is debt…. Money is debt… Debt really shouldn’t appreciate forever right? I mean. Assume that the standard narrative about the Holocaust is true. Haven’t the Germans repaid the debt? Or should it just go on forever plus interest? Claims against somebody (especially the community) should come with a time limit. It’s part of justice. 57
Posted by uh on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:58 | # the only people who write more words than those who deny race, are those who love money above their race. 58
Posted by Brady on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:06 | # I think the point of the interest is to give the fiat currency value. Otherwise it’s just a piece of paper. Like a bond. A bond that paid no interest would have no value. Production has to be of something one or someone else wants. If the fiat currency were depreciating and people were hoarding something else, then something else would become money. The fiat currency wouldn’t facilitate trade. People would demand something else for payment. 59
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:25 | # I think the point of the interest is to give the fiat currency value. Otherwise it’s just a piece of paper. Like a bond. A bond that paid no interest would have no value. Deprecation is reverse interest. Appreciation is robbing from the young. Its “value” as an instrument is determined by consensus. Storehouses of value are going to vary from person to person and people won’t use them as currency generally. Production has to be of something one or someone else wants. Of course. If the fiat currency were depreciating and people were hoarding something else, then something else would become money. The fiat currency wouldn’t facilitate trade. People would demand something else for payment. What? Bread? Houses? Land? The point of agreeing on currency is that it has the force of law. There isn’t supposed to be a free for all and neither is there supposed to be a society hell bent on propping up the value of some currency. However, I’m willing to bend on the pace of deprecation (or even if it occurs at all) but its my personal preference right now. The point is that there is enough of it (assuming that the “value” of goods and services are increasing and that the economy is “progressing”). Most people aren’t really concerned with “storing” value to begin with. It is daily bread that is most important. Retirement can be guaranteed by a restoration of the generational compact and skimmed from the productive (the young) like it always has been. 60
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:28 | # I think the point of the interest is to give the fiat currency value. If there is 100$ injected into circulation (created out of nothing as it always is) and it is lent into circulation at interest, how can the debt ever be payed back without going further into debt as far as the overall amount of debt in circulation is concerned? The point of interest is to enslave people and keep them in high debt levels permanently. In fact, people are far more “productive” (for their masters) when they are in debt. Civilization as we have known it is pretty much predicated upon debt and slavery. 61
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:30 | # Otherwise it’s just a piece of paper. Every financial instrument you can think of is an intrinsically worthless piece of paper. Do we agree on that? 62
Posted by Brady on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:52 | # If the fiat currency is depreciating and people are hoarding something else and ceasing to use the fiat currency as money, then that means there is no agreement or consensus to use the fiat currency. You would have to force them to use the fiat currency by gunpoint. To maintain daily bread, that is to create a stream of bread arriving everyday into the future, you have to store value to be able to coordinate activity across time. Financial instruments are claims on assets and profits. Claims on assets and profits are valuable. The paper represents the claim. It isn’t the claim itself. 63
Posted by Brady on Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:58 | #
The bank makes a loan to a firm. It records the loan as an asset. The firm deposits the loan. The bank charges interest on the loan. The firm pays interest on the loan from its deposit. The bank then reduces the amount outstanding on the loan by the amount of interest paid. The firm hires workers by transferring money from its deposit to the workers’ deposits. The bank pays deposit interest to the firm’s and the workers’ deposit accounts. The bank and the workers consume by transferring money back to the firm’s account to buy goods and services. The firm then repays the loan by transferring money from its deposit account back to the bank. The bank then records that the loan has been paid off. 64
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:11 | # If the fiat currency is depreciating I’ve already consented this is negotiable. and people are hoarding something else and ceasing to use the fiat currency as money, then that means there is no agreement or consensus to use the fiat currency. All currency is fiat to begin with. You would have to force them to use the fiat currency by gunpoint. That’s always what happens. To maintain daily bread, that is to create a stream of bread arriving everyday into the future, you have to store value to be able to coordinate activity across time. Some of it. Yes of course. The dollar is only worth 1% what it was one hundred years ago but we are waaaaay better off today. Financial instruments are claims on assets and profits. They are all intrinsically worthless. Claims on assets and profits are valuable. The paper represents the claim. It isn’t the claim itself. It still represents a debt. Just like money. It represents a claim. However you prefer to phrase it. 65
Posted by Brady on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:22 | # Not all financial instruments are debts. Bonds are, but equities aren’t. 66
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:28 | # The bank makes a loan to a firm. It records the loan as an asset. Where’d the bank get the money to loan? And records a claim where? The firm deposits the loan. Where? The bank charges interest on the loan. Depending on where they got the money for the loan that can be a real hell of a perk! The firm pays interest on the loan from its deposit. Where did it get the money to pay the interest? The bank then reduces the amount outstanding on the loan by the amount of interest paid. And depending on how fast the currency is appreciating/deprecating and how quickly the interest compounds this could be pretty fucking awesome for the bank. The firm hires workers by transferring money from its deposit to the workers’ deposits. Finally. All that just to get a fucking job. The bank pays deposit interest to the firm’s and the workers’ deposit accounts. The bank pays a negligible amount of interest to the workers who can barely afford their daily bread. The bank and the workers consume by transferring money back to the firm’s account to buy goods and services. Yeah. Banks are real big consumers. The firm then repays the loan by transferring money from its deposit account back to the bank. So. Where did the money to pay the interest to the bank come from? If there was only 100$ loaned to the bank and the bank charges more total interest than it pays out how does the firm pay the bank back in toto? The bank then records that the loan has been paid off. And yet the ratio of private debt/money supply just keeps getting bigger… (It has decreased slight in the last few years… Slightly) 67
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:32 | # Not all financial instruments are debts. Bonds are, but equities aren’t. Ok. So a stock certificate doesn’t represent some sort of debt? Regardless, it is an intrinsically worthless piece of paper. Maybe the “equity” in your home doesn’t represent a “debt” but really it is still just a debt you owe to the bank until you have paid the fucking thing off (typically paying twice as much as the sticker price BECAUSE OF INTEREST) and then it is just a deprecating asset like everything else under the sun. Nothing violates the 2nd law except GOLD I guess… 69
Posted by Brady on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 02:08 | # A stock certificate represents a share in ownership of the company. It isn’t debt like a bond. Equity in your home is the portion that you own. It’s the difference between the value of the house and the mortgage debt outstanding on the house. If you make a loan, then that loan is an asset to you and a liability to the borrower. If you own cash, gold, valuable machinery, etc. then they would be assets to you but not debts to anyone else. 70
Posted by Brady on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 02:09 | # There’s a difference between stock and flow. The initial loan is a stock. The $100 loan is $100, not $100 per year. Income is a flow. It is dollars per year. Or whatever time unit. If you borrow $100, you can generate $300 in turnover, pay $200 in costs, and pay $5 in interest from $100 profit. 71
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 02:42 | # A stock certificate represents a share in ownership of the company. It isn’t debt like a bond. I get it. It’s a claim on the “company” or venture. It’s a debt the company owes the shareholder. No? Equity in your home is the portion that you own. It’s the difference between the value of the house and the mortgage debt outstanding on the house. I get it. Equity is extinguished debt If you make a loan, then that loan is an asset to you and a liability to the borrower. If you own cash, gold, valuable machinery, etc. then they would be assets to you but not debts to anyone else. There is a huge difference between valuable machinery and currency (only currency because of the force of law backed by the force of the gun). Regardless, the currency is a claim on the users of the currency. It is a debt owed by the entire community to the holder of the currency. There’s a difference between stock and flow. The initial loan is a stock. The $100 loan is $100, not $100 per year. Income is a flow. It is dollars per year. Or whatever time unit. If you borrow $100, you can generate $300 in turnover, pay $200 in costs, and pay $5 in interest from $100 profit. Forget all that. The stock only increases by interest bearing flow (which creates the same stock problem every year) at every step in the fucking process. If the bank injects another 100 we are only compounding the problem. Hence, the increasing private debt to M-0 ratio (not proportional stocks, but ratio). 72
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 02:44 | # deprecate = depreciate although deprecate would be even worse 73
Posted by Silver on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:19 | # Haller,
It’s a question of values and beliefs as much as it is economics. Austrians constantly emphasize the discipline that fixed exchange rates supposedly place on politicians, arguing that politicians will avoid getting their countries in a jam because of the difficulties and political risks involved in correcting that jam once it has occurred. Well, that’s just a straightforward misreading of human nature to my way of thinking. We’re flawed creatures, all of us, in way or another. A political ideology that expects perfection out of people is simply another case of “great system, wrong species.” The assumption should be that politicians will screw up and currencies will have to be devalued at some point, and that before that point is reached much turmoil will ensue with the attendant risk that hard left forces may even topple capitalist enterprise itself. All that for the sake of what, poking your finger in the eye of the accursed welfare state? Geez, talk about getting your priorities straight!
Fine, but in that it case be warned that it may well be that you’re already indulging in antiquarianism.
If pointing out that a couple of chapters in that volume were penned by Austrians willing to make concessions to monetary views you would, I’m sure, decry as foulest socialism didn’t whet your appetite I doubt anything else I say will. Seriously, though, why not just download the freakin thing and see for yourself? The whole process will take some 30 seconds. Open the pdf and within ten or fifteen minutes you’ll know for yourself whether it’s worth reading on or not.
No theft involved, sorry. But then we have differing views of what money actually is. You labor under the misconception that it’s something “real.” I contend that it’s what it’s always been: an idea. And if you treat money as “discovered” rather than “invented,” I think you’ll agree that fractional reserve banking simply represents greater discovery of the true nature of money.
So I was correct. You’re not talking about private property per se at all. You’re just equivocating. You ask what point do we speak of transition from capitalism to socialism? I don’t know. At what point do we speak of transition from hot weather to warm weather to mild weather to chilly weather? Maybe we should just state what the temperature is in terms of degrees and base further discussion on that figure. And of course, I’d like to ask you at what point you’ll admit that what you seek is not merely ‘less tax’ but, in fact, no tax at all? Because if 50 or so percent is ‘too much,’ why isn’t 40% too much also, and why aren’t 30% or 20% or 10% all too much too? Or maybe we could just avoid the whole silly exercise and acknowledge that the existence of taxation does not itself contradict the concept of private property.
That’s quite fair enough, although it does seem you’re clutching at straws. But yes, I think I’m inclined to agree with you that “Austrian growth is an absolutely different animal.” It’s so different that Austrians never see any need at all to attempt to quantify it. They just assure you it was/is there.
We are talking about the USA, which was not bombed out or in any need of rebuilding, not Europe. In any case, though, per capita GDP in all European countries except Germany had already exceeded the prewar level by 1950, and certainly so by 1960, 1970 etc. So this was most certainly new growth.
Well, yes, that’s exactly my point. I’d simply remove the qualifier “in the short term” and ask what reason you have for placing it there except as a way to salvage something of your utterly irrational insistence that only Austrian practices are capable of growing market-based economies?
But I’ve never made this claim. I’ve only responded to your claim that Keynesianism is some kind of “idiocy” that destroys economies. My intention was to provide evidence that is not so; that growth rates have been higher under Keynesian regimes than they were in the late 19th century is but a welcome bonus.
That may very well be true (and someone who is adamantly pro-growth, I’d very much like to believe it is), but we again bump up against some very real socio-political constraints and the reasons that I believe policies that pick the stragglers up rather than leave them behind is the wiser course of action in the long run.
“Crashed” is a bit much, surely. US per capita average annual growth rates:
I’m sure that plays a role but the fact is the rural:urban transition played out over many long decades. That process began in the latter part of the 19th century and maintained a fairly constant pace until about 1970. If it was so important to growth in, say, 1950-1970, when the rural population fell from 40% to 26%, why were its effects not just as important between 1900 and 1940, when it fell from 60% to 43%? Indeed, why not as it fell from 85% in 1850 to 54% in 1910? It can hardly be because no substantial scientific advances occurred over this period!
Good God, you’re going to cite the postwar Japs as an example of capitalistic non-interventionists?! 74
Posted by Brady on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:27 | # It is ownership of the company. It isn’t a debt the company owes. The company owes debts to its bondholders. Equity isn’t necessarily extinguished debt. If the value of the house falls below the mortgage, then you are in negative equity. If you own valuable machinery and cash, then they are both assets on your balance sheet, but they aren’t someone else’s debts or liabilities to you. If you lend out your machine and cash to someone, then those loans would be assets on your balance sheet and represent rental and interest income, and liabilities for the borrower. The stock doesn’t increase in the example. The point is that the stock stays the same and doesn’t have to increase. 75
Posted by Brady on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:39 | # The stock of $100 as it circulates through the economy in a given time period generates flows in the forms of wages, profits, interest, etc. that exceed the stock. 76
Posted by Silver on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:45 | #
No, it’s not. Don’t you think it would have been a far better idea to familiarize yourself with the rudiments of the capitalistic order before presenting yourself as some font of economic wisdom?
77
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:50 | # It is ownership of the company. It isn’t a debt the company owes. The company owes debts to its bondholders. Fine. I thought we were talking about dividend paying shares. But whatever. There are “real” assets out there. We are quibbling about side issues. Sure. Stock represents ownership of the company assuming one didn’t leverage one’s way into it. Equity isn’t necessarily extinguished debt. If the value of the house falls below the mortgage, then you are in negative equity. I’m pretty sure I made that exact same point pretty explicitly in a few different ways. If you own valuable machinery and cash, then they are both assets on your balance sheet, but they aren’t someone else’s debts or liabilities to you. If you lend out your machine and cash to someone, then those loans would be assets on your balance sheet and represent rental and interest income, and liabilities for the borrower. The cash is a claim on the assets of the community. The machine is not. I’m not sure why we are talking about it anymore though. When I said one man’s asset is another man’s debt I didn’t mean every real piece of property on the planet. The stock doesn’t increase in the example. The point is that the stock stays the same and doesn’t have to increase. I thought that is what you might be getting at. The stock has to increase or the interest can never be repaid. All that can happen here is that the ratio of stock to debt decreases. Is it your contention that all the interest will balance out and exchange will happen unimpeded? Or is it that as mutual indebtedness increases and productivity decreases as the cost of everything increases relative to stock that we can rest easy because we can live off the mutual indebtedness? I mean really it boils down to what you think money is for. I want money to encourage exchange and for the community to create value via real assets (machinery, for example). I don’t really care about whether or not it is a store of value. There are other ways to store value (productive machines, land, rents on real property, children, etc.) It is a pretty reliable method of account no matter what we use; it’s the most innocuous trait of money. Demurrage, in my opinion, equals more exchange but I’m willing to bend on this if we adjust other aspects of the supply. You wanna sum up your thoughts so we can start over here? Is it your contention that we should stop mining gold and that we should enforce a gold standard? 78
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:51 | # Don’t you think it would have been a far better idea to familiarize yourself with the rudiments of the capitalistic order before presenting yourself as some font of economic wisdom? Shut the fuck up. Nobody is talking to you. 79
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:53 | # The stock of $100 as it circulates through the economy in a given time period generates flows in the forms of wages, profits, interest, etc. that exceed the stock. But there never reaches a point where we need more stock to pay for the flow? 80
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:57 | # Equity isn’t necessarily extinguished debt. If the value of the house falls below the mortgage, then you are in negative equity. And demurrage is negative interest It’s the penalty for impeding exchange and the price for hoarding. 81
Posted by Brady on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 04:22 | # Cash isn’t a claim like a stock or a bond. An ice cream vendor might accept a dollar for an ice cream cone but he doesn’t have to if he deems the dollar is worthless. I was arguing against the point that bank debt can never be repaid by definition since not enough is created via the initial loan. The stock can circulate to generate enough flows to pay off the loan and interest. In a bad economy, economic activity declines and the flows (profits, wages, interest, etc.) decrease. So the loans can go bad because there isn’t enough flow to pay them off. In that case you can increase the stock to make up for the bad loans. That’s basically what the bailouts are. 82
Posted by Silver on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 05:22 | #
That’s about the level of reply I expected. I know I shouldn’t have bothered responding to your nonsense. Just sad to see someone wasting his life away in this manner, I guess.
83
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:14 | # Cash isn’t a claim like a stock or a bond. An ice cream vendor might accept a dollar for an ice cream cone but he doesn’t have to if he deems the dollar is worthless. I’m talking very very broadly here. But fine. You’re right. Everything is peachy. Hooray gold! I was arguing against the point that bank debt can never be repaid by definition since not enough is created via the initial loan. The stock can circulate to generate enough flows to pay off the loan and interest. Maybe it could for the firm. Maybe. But probably not. Certainly not for everyone if we are considering the bank the sole creditor. In a bad economy, economic activity declines and the flows (profits, wages, interest, etc.) decrease. So the loans can go bad because there isn’t enough flow to pay them off. In that case you can increase the stock to make up for the bad loans. That’s basically what the bailouts are. I should have waited to respond since you said it. However, I would argue this isn’t the only time. 84
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:25 | # That’s about the level of reply I expected. I know I shouldn’t have bothered responding to your nonsense. Just sad to see someone wasting his life away in this manner, I guess. Yeah whatever. I’m pretty sure you know how to find my email if you wanna have a “real” conversation. If you can’t extend me the benefit of the doubt and understand that I’m talking broadly here. Meta, if you will. Or, philosophizing about money in non-standard ways. If you really believe that I don’t know what the fuck stocks and bonds are then you aren’t arguing in good faith. You’re just trolling. I’m one of the only ones that treated you fairly reasonably from the beginning despite your weird fucking lies. You think I’m wasting my life away at MR? Classic. Don’t worry bro. I’m just not working right now. I’ll be back soon and I’ll be wasting my life bossing people around.
85
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:23 | # I’ve rarely read such extended displays of idiotic reasoning (not you Brady, though you could be clearer). Still, have any of you read the article I linked to? I would love to see you try to refute it (my ulterior and real motive is to see if you can understand it, and can demonstrate such understanding, even if within the context of offering a critique of it; count me sceptical). One thing I have learned in my commenting across the ideological blogosphere (including here at MR) pertaining to the ability to change minds by presenting superior analysis: people have to want to see the truth. I am by nature a man of such genuine open-mindedness that I naively tend to assume others with whom I might share some general commonality are as well. Big mistake! People get psychologically invested in particular interpretations of aspects of reality, and just find it very difficult to let go of them, even in the face of clear demonstrations of their inadequacy (eg, hey Silver, if Keynesianism has any validity, then why didn’t Obongo’s uber-Keynesian $813 billion “stimulus” keep US unemployment beneath 8% as promised? Note, all us Austrians predicted it would be a failure, and we were correct, as always). Little wonder history is so obviously a march of folly! 86
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:48 | # I’ve rarely read such extended displays of idiotic reasoning (not you Brady, though you could be clearer). Then just fuck off. Why don’t you argue with your own words instead of constantly referring to your kike gods? Don’t you fucking get it? Most of us were libertarians at some point! I read Lew Rockwell every fucking day. I plowed thru Human Action. We’ve all already read it and find it an unconvincing and poisonous ideology. Little wonder history is so obviously a march of folly! Obviously because gold isn’t enthroned. That’s why history is a march of folly! Not because of sin or human nature. Man is perfectible you see! What a fucking crock of shit. That is LIBERALISM. Silver, if Keynesianism has any validity, then why didn’t Obongo’s uber-Keynesian $813 billion “stimulus” keep US unemployment beneath 8% as promised? Yeah. Because Austrians were the only ones predicting that it wouldn’t work. 87
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:29 | # Will say this about Keynesian economics: It would have worked if it was practised by responsable patriotic adults. But alas, what we have is a bunch of greedy pigs - and other assorted vermin - in charge of things. What Obama and crew are doing is not -repeat NOT - Keynesian economics. It’s a spending binge/wealth transfer scheme THAT IS INTENDED TO and WILL bankrupt the USA if not stopped. Actually it may already be too late. Mitt Romney says it isn’t. Personally I thought it was too late back in 1992 when Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan were sounding the clarion call. The fact is, true Keynesian economics was shit-canned during Reagan’s first term. At least that’s when the heavy deficit spending began. Now we are running a 1.3 trillion deficit per year and will continue to do so as far as the eye can see. Can the USA create enough economic expansion over the next 10 years to be able to continue to fund a Superpower military, entitlement programs, and the maintenance of a projected 30 trillion dollar debt? Of course the answer is NO! Moreover, no economic theory out there can save us. Going back to the gold standard cannot save us. There is force out there with a strong enough resistance to even slow down the inertia created by the combined force of globalism and stateism. The TEA Party protesters are its only resistance and it seems their influence is waning. So, how might this current chapter in history end? Many experts clearly see WWIII on the horizon. Personally, I’m banking on the Mayan calender…. BTW, here’s a good article about racial socialism; the current state of politics in AmericKWA. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/what_does_racial_socialism_sou.html 88
Posted by Silver on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:56 | #
Referring to my reply to you? Lol.
I don’t believe you. If you were as open-minded as you claim you’d be more reasonable. You’d have a better grasp of why obviously intelligent people (not referring to myself here—though I wouldn’t rule it out) assume the positions they do, even if you do happen to disagree with them. You wouldn’t be so quick to ascribe their wrongness to idiocy or moral depravity. What have you changed your mind about in the last thirty years? Anything?
Get real. As if it’s such a precise science that anyone could “promise” a specific employment rate. The trick is not getting yourself into a jam as big as this in the first place. If you do, you’re going to have extended pain no matter what solution you apply, Keynesian or otherwise. 89
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:58 | # Thorn @44, 88 You seem like an honorable man, interested in truth as such and not mere validation of pet idiocies. Might I suggest that you read the article I linked to, and more broadly, the resources available through the Mises Institute? Because I assure you, Keynesianism is a pile of shit. It was decisively disproved in the 30s by Hayek and Lionel Robbins. It was later demolished by the financial journalist Henry Hazlitt, esp his The Failure of the “New Economics”, which did a line by line refutation of the nonsense in Keynes’s magnum opus, The General Theory. It was disproved empirically forever by the stagflation of the 70s, something the Keynesian asses had said was impossible. Here is a link to an anti-Keynes collection: https://mises.org/store/Anti-Keynes-Collection-P10446.aspx Basically, you probably studied this stuff at college. Sympathies, brother, so did I! Unless you went to Caltech, MIT or (possibly) Harvard, you did not attend a more elite school than I did. What I “learned” in my econ major was mostly crap (at least when it strayed from basic neoclassical stuff, and esp when it veered into macroeconomics, a total waste unless taught by an “Austrian”). You may not want to admit that your econ major (if that’s what you were) was a waste, like studying pre-Copernican astronomy, but it probably was. Have you (or any of you) read Hazlitt’s little book Economics in One Lesson? I remember it as being kind of boring, but I still cannot recommend it too highly for anyone who is not (yet) an Austrian (note to Lister: being an ‘Austrian’ need not entail being a liberal or libertarian). Seriously, this is just embarrassing. There are real challenges to Austrian theory (I emphasize that I am referring to the pure economics, not to ‘Austrianism’ as a synonym of ‘libertarianism’, which suffers from grave intellectual deficiencies), but they do not come from Keynesianism or monetarism (Chicago school), but, at best, from the still somewhat nascent (but rapidly growing) school of ‘ecological economics’. (I have pointed this out before.) I adhere to Austrian microeconomics, but am sympathetic to ecological macroeconomics. If any here can offer detailed criticisms of capitalism from an ecolate perspective, I’d love to investigate and debate those at greater length. But the notion that govt can direct investment better than interested individuals operating under capitalist incentives and restraints has been so extensively disproven, both theoretically and empirically, that it’s really not worth the bother to discuss such matters further. 90
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:21 | # Silver@74 I’ve already answered you to my satisfaction in my long comment #42 above, plus I need to take a closer look at Lister’s points, which I do not find relevant to my discussion. However, you haven’t really addressed my fundamental objection: that economic growth has occurred under economies practicing Keynesian macroecon (KM) - indeed, that such growth even might have been greater than what occurred in earlier periods of laissez-faire - in no way logically invalidates the contention that Keynesianism is economically deleterious. That’s pretty clear and understandable ... isn’t it!? Why do you assume that KM had anything to do with the superior postwar growth, and not the other factors I adduced? (Again, I do not accept your empirical assertion: I think the growth embodied in the transition from 1850 to 1900, or 1900-1930, was much greater than what has been experienced in the most KM period of all - 1960 - the present.) 91
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:20 | # Leon, My position WRT Keynesian economic theory is it makes sense in theory. However, when put in practice, and human nature being as flawed as it is, it gets perverted along the way. I.e. Obama’s 813 billion dollar stimulus plan was used as a slush fund for his cronies. Hence, it doesn’t really represent true Keynesian economics, IMO. Again, Keynesian economic theory sounds good on paper, but when criminal and traitorious politicians apply it, it invariably results in corruption/crony capitalism. Re Solyndra, the Big Three auto union bailouts, etc. I think Yogi Berra said it best WRT the difference Between Theory And Practice. He said: “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.” HEH! Wise man, that Yogi! Anyway, thanks for the link. It led me to this: http://mises.org/etexts/austrian.asp Also that book by Hazlitt looks like a worthwhile read. I may very well read it after I’m done reading a dozen or so books on the shelf I haven’t read yet. You know, procrastination and all that…. PS, Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3QwCNEPAz0 Talk about embarrassingly stupid! White libtards! 92
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:46 | # Also that book by Hazlitt looks like a worthwhile read. I may very well read it after I’m done reading a dozen or so books on the shelf I haven’t read yet. You know, procrastination and all that…. It’s simplistic, fact-free nonsense written at a fourth grade level. You’d be better off reading Mises or Rothbard. 93
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:21 | #
No, it isn’t. It was praised by none other than Hayek, among distinguished others. Of course, it’s not Human Action, but that’s the point. It’s a nice introduction. (Read it Thorn.) 94
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:19 | # Of course, it’s not Human Action, but that’s the point. It’s a nice introduction. (Read it Thorn.) He doesn’t need an introduction and it is written at a fucking fourth grade level. IT"S CRAP! Post a comment:
Next entry: The shaping of European altruism in left political form, part 1
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 21 Jun 2012 01:54 | #
GW,
Sometimes I read those threads and I want to save you the aggravation and just smash your head into the wall for you.
Thanks again for doing the work you do.