We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
“End the Fed!” Do you think that the people occupying Wall Street are all idiots, parasitical permanent students, studying nothing of value, and demanding everything in exchange for that nothing? See also the previous posting, and its reference to “the zombie youth of the Big Sloth movement”.
Maybe most of the occupiers are like that, but this guy seems to have grabbed the chance to say something much more sensible. Fractional reserve banking (evils of). Gold standard (superiority of). Bale-outs (wickedness of). Watch and enjoy.
What a laugh (in addition to being profoundly good) it would be if the biggest winners from these stupid demos were Ron Paul, and the Austrian Theory of Money and Banking.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
It would be indeed hilarious if free marketeers and opponents of Big Government, Junk Money and over-regulation could use this movement to good advantage.
I am not so sure, to be honest.
We did the same thing during the Tents Protests* here in Israel: used them to mix in the crowd to promote the free-market ideas. I have no idea how effective that was, but it did beat sitting at home and cursing at the TV screen. So I say more power to that kid in the video.
*The 150,000 figure in that report is based on the Israeli MSM figures, which are totally bogus. We wouldn’t want to confuse anyone with mere facts though, would we. Which makes me wonder how many actually attended the WS protests – I sure hope not too many of this kind of geniuses.
Well, I do think that most of them are irredeemable idiots, although I have some sympathy for their cause because they’re right to decry the crony capitalism which has become the hallmark of this country. (Eisenhower was right to warn about the “military-industrial complex”, but that has now metastacized into a “Wall Street-industrial complex”.) Unfortunately these protesters fail to comprehend that the source of the problem is Washington, not Wall Street. The banksters are just doing what they do (like the scorpion riding on the frog), but if politicians didn’t have so much power the demands of wealthy financiers and megacorporations wouldn’t matter.
That list of putative demands has been making the internet rounds for the last week or so. At first I ridiculed it, but I’ve been giving more thought to #11 (worldwide cancellation of debt), and I’m warming to the idea. Oh, not that it makes any sense whatsoever (it’s totally insane, as are the rest of the demands), but in reality it’s just the natural culmination of the course we’re already on. So why not accelerate the process and be done with it?
Universal debt forgiveness is essentially “free money for everyone”. Well, right now the Fed and other central banks are providing oodles of free money, but not for everyone, just for the favored few, those being the large banks and financial institutions, the government itself, and all those whose snouts are firmly embedded in the government trough. I ask you, is that fair? Why shouldn’t we all get our share of the governmental largesse, and directly, not waiting for the few scraps which manage to slop over the side?
Creditors would, of course, scream that debt forgiveness would ruin them, and they would be correct. But that’s happening already, if more slowly, by the inherently inflationary policies of the US and the EU. Oh, the officially reported inflation is relatively low, to be sure, but that ignores the fact that (a) the way in which inflation is being measured has been thoroughly corrupted in the last few decades, so it’s not even close to an accurate assessment, and (b) the huge amount of newly-printed fiat money which has been introduced into the system in the last 3 years hasn’t yet really found its way into the general economy (it’s hiding in such places as “excess reserves” on deposit with the Fed), but when it does start to leak out inflation will come roaring in with a vengeance. Hyperinflation is a real possibility, and given the interconnectedness of the global financial system if it starts anywhere it will rapidly spread to everywhere. So in the end we are going to have universal debt forgiveness, if only because the currency in which that debt is denominated will have been so debased that the debt is essentially worthless. Economies will collapse, but then we can clean up the mess and start again. That’s inevitable, so let’s steal a march and get it over with. (I think Perry would approve!)
Viva la revolución!
I would approve too, but it’s not going to happen, precisely because the original idea was never to give anything to everyone, but very much to give lots of free stuff to a select few. But it’s all water under the bridge anyway.
I think we’re making too much of the protest as it is.
It’s a few hundred people being stupid in a no-stupid zone, out of a population about double that of my entire state.
Really, if five hundred ankle biters all threw themselves on the ground and screamed, would anybody pay them any mind? So, why are we doing so when the rug monkeys are (physically and chronologically) adults?
Laird’s point is a very valid one, both the politicians and their “useful idiots” can see that we are either very close to, or have already passed the point of no-return.
The major economies of the world are completely bust, sure we can continue with the fiat money merry-go-round, but we’re on the same “Road to Weimar” as post-World War I Germany was, we just haven’t reached the point where hyper-inflation kicks in yet.
All fiat currencies end up going the same way and those who hold physical assets are the ones who survive to the next round of the game, provided those assets aren’t ceased by the state to fund the casino bank once more.
I’m so genuinely afraid that I’ve liquidated everything and I’m just waiting for a visa to the Far East turning up in the next 2-months so that I can get the hell out of here. Fortunately, my family already have citizenships in the same Far Eastern country, so they are just waiting for me to turn up and buy a house with my fiat paper while it’s still worth something.
Dark times ahead…
“It’s a few hundred people being stupid in a no-stupid zone . . . .”
There’s a no stupid zone? In the US? Can you please tell me where?
The Ron Paul types align themselves all the time with the far-left. In fact Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (on the far-left of the Dems) have repeatedly called for Ron Paul fans & “progressives” (ie socialists) to cooperate on issues they agree on.
Its a networking seminar. Amidst all the hoopla and stupidity, the connections necessary to field a dedicated mob of committed leftist activists and their willing dupes when needed during upcoming electoral seasons or legislative controversies are being forged.
I told you guys months ago that there would be blood in the streets before the current progressive elites could be dislodged from their positions in society.
Seattle was one test run. There have been others, both here and in other western countries.
This is a new attempt to form the street level shock troops that can be called out to action when needed by those who dislike any tampering with their positions of power.
Did you really think the Tea Party was not going to draw a leftist response, or that it would be anything other than this type of incoherent, demand anything and everything, one short step from violence group of losers and cannon fodder?
Laird:
The cancellation of private debt is theft pure and simple.
But the cancellation of government debt has a lot to commend it. After all, why should taxpayers be fleeced to pay bond holders ? And repudiation of the debt also has the side benefit that governents will find it far harder to borrow money in the future.
Julius, the taxpayers shouldn’t get off scott free because We The People are the government. We send people to Congress and we allow them to keep writing checks because we don’t hold their feet to the fire every two years and vote them out of office. Granted, not having universal sufferage would solve a lot of that, but it isn’t like the taxpayer is just some subject of the sovereign. We let it happen, so why shouldn’t we get stuck with the bill?
The demands issued by OWS are purely a case of “I WANT A PONY” ranting by economic illiterates. Ron Paul fans arent the only End the Fed types, I am seeing a lot of crazies from the Zeitgeist Movement cult and its Venus Project who conflate the fed with all thats wrong with capitalism in a very kooky left anarcho-techno-communist belief that some big supercomputer in the sky (i.e. GOD) can centrally plan their way to economic stability and bounteous plenty for all without the need for evil money.
I for one am encouraged that this young man could be so articulate and forceful, and get across a message I mostly agree with. I think that veryretired is correct, that this movement (and yes, it is a movement) will become a violent mob, because, as things get worse, they will have nothing to lose.
The mob impulse can be blunted by such messages, though I fear it is probably already too late. Many of these protestors dont have a clue what the target of their rage should be, but they sure do know that something is rotten, and getting out of control. A good portion of what he had to say are issues the protestors find themselves agreeing with… it is only at the end of the video that you see some of the Faithful trying to steer the herb back to a corral of safe Socialism.
“I agree with you on some of these problems, and here is why…” is a far more effective message than ‘Go get a job, you lazy entitlement whore!’
I note that man’s sign was homemade (as our the signs one sees at a Tea Party event), the leftist signs tend to be professionally made – either financed by front groups (funded partly by Soros and co – and partly by the taxpayers) or financed by the unions.
One amusing moment in the “Occupy Wall Street” stuff was when it was found that the hispanic protestors (who had been bussed in to make the, mostly white student, event look diverse) were found to be unable to read the signs they were carrying – the signs had been handed out to them and no one checked to see if they could read English (of course in an election all they have to be able to read is the candidate’s name or the word “Democrat”).
As for the young man’s political positions – I agree with them.
I want to end the Federal Reserve – and all other support for fractional reserve banking (if they can survive on their own I might grind my teeth – but I would not end them).
As for the wars.
I did not support the judgement to go into Iraq – not because it was “illegal” or was “war for oil and corporate profits” or any drivil like that. I did not support the judgement to go in (although I supported the troops once they were there) because I have no faith whatever in the “bring democracy to Islamic world” neocon project.
However, I did support the judgement to go into Afghanistan in 2001 (I thought the operation was to kill Bin Laden and Mullah Omah in revenge for 9/11 – the neocon project just did not register with my, clearly rather limited, mind).
I now bitterly regret my folly – but, of course, my regrets can not bring back the soldiers killed (and still being killed).
As for the finanicial side….
Ending the wars would not save the United States economy (not even close) – but it certainly would not hurt. It would save substanial sums of money – and I am not going to be put off from saying that by people waving “the bloody shirt”.
Perhaps the war in Afghanistan could have been won had the policy of sending in vast numbers of extra soldiers been followed (I say “perhaps” because I am not sure what “winning” is supposed to mean – even after a “victory” the Afghan government would still be made up of people supportive of Islam, the real Islam of Muhammed not the made up “peace loving and tolerant” Islam of Bush and Blair).
However, these vast forces were not sent in – so American and British (and other) forces continue to bleed and die in Afghanistan for no purpose. For no purpose as (even according to the military – in private) there is no possibility of victory.
“So you support talks with the Taliban” – NO, there is no need to humilate ourselves with a phony “peace agreement” that would (of course) be broken.
Defeat is defeat is defeat – it should not be dressed up as a phony victory. And nor should it be blamed on the military – they were given an impossible problem (make an Islamic country like a non Islamic country – without changing the religion of the population) akin to calculating the square root of minus one.
Back to economic matters….
Ending the Federal Reseve is a good idea BUT……..
The economy would COLLAPSE (it will anyway – but this will bring it forward).
The leading banks would go down like ninepins and the corporations dependent on them would go down also.
The young man complaining of his low wages would almost certainly not have that problem any more – as he would not have a job (as the economy went into depression).
This is why some people (such as Herman Cane – with his long relationship with the Federal Reserve) are horrified of the very suggestion of “End The Fed”.
However, they are wrong and they young man (although he most likely does not know about th eeconomic collapse part of ending the Fed) is correct.
This is because a depression is unaviodable – a depression of at least the 1921 style (not the 1929 – 1930s depression without recovery).
In the words of the Treasury Sec to Herbert Hoover (whose advice he REJECTED) the rotteness must be cleared out of the system – the malinvestments must go.
Actually the Marxists (and they are Marxists) in charge of the “Occupy Wall Street” campaign know that depression is unavoidable also – and that it is put off (although also MADE WORSE) by the endless subsdies that keep Wall Street in business.
They want a massive economic collapse – because they believe they would benefit from it, that they would finally get a crises of high enough seriousess to supposedly justify the imposition of a new order upon the United States (indeed upon the Western world – as, of course, economic collapse in the United States would collapse the credit bubble system elsewhere also).
The real question is how is this economic collapse going to be responded to.
In 1921 Warren Harding Administration reacted to the bursting of the World War One credit bubble by cutting government spending by 25% (from a PEACETIME 1920 total) and allowing prices and wages to adjust (i.e. wages to FALL) so that markets could clear.
Within six months the economy was in recovery – and soon unemployment had been cleared, productivity was rising and wages could rise again.
All the above is the real reason (not Tea Pot Dome) why establishment historians hate the Harding Administration.
The comming economic crises will (I believe) be much worse than 1921 – but reacting to it in the same way is the only way to get out of it.
New banks (on sound principles) would be created, new industrial corporations would also form and grow (and so on).
However, what is the possiblity that a massive economic crises would be responded to with massive cuts in government spending (not Cameron style cuts – where a government ends up spending more in 2011 than it spent in 2010) and by allowing markets (including labour markets) to clear?
This is the question.
By the way two points – one large, one small.
The large point.
Only by hitting the ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS can government spending in the United States (or anywhere else) be brought back under control.
The small point.
Dear Occupy Wall Street protestors – if you are getting less than 600 Dollars a week (which is what your street organizers are getting) then you are being cheated by your Comrade Leaders.
Steven:
“We let it happen, so why shouldn’t we get stuck with the bill?”
If I authorise you to incur a debt on my behalf, then of course I have to pay the debt.
But it is incorrect to equate voting for a choice between different flavours of soft-socialist-statist-deficit-financing politicians as being the legal or moral equivalent of authorising your agent to incur a debt on your behalf.
The reality is that voters even as a group have very little real say in what the State does or how much debt it incurs on the bond markets and as individuals they have no say at all.
“Do you think that the people occupying Wall Street are all idiots…”
Yes. Here’s why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLSvK2eIoBs&feature=player_embedded
There was a good Blogging Heads bit the other day, where they pointed out there is a lot of common ground between these ‘occupy wall street’ types, and the tea partiers.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/39229?in=30:11&out=36:47
The policies they advocate are different mind!
The reason why these occupiers are getting so much attention is that the mainstream media think they’re not idiots and are advertising them, and the right wing alternative media know that they are idiots and are advertisng them.
While there certainly are a lot of idiots in the OWS crowd, some of them are merely ignorant (a curable condition). That’s hardly surprising, given what passes for economic “wisdom” these days in academia, politics and among mainstream economists.* These people are protesting against the excesses of the last decade, and the epicenter of such excesses appears to be Wall Street. But that’s entirely superficial. What they’re really objecting to, without knowing it, is not capitalism but crony capitalism (“crapitalism”, in a felicitous word I’ve been seeing lately). Politicians and bankers colluding and using each other for their own ends. I very much doubt that true capitalism, people’s use of their own assets in a free market without political favoritism and cronyism, would be objectionable to most of them. But for their entire lives they’ve been taught that bailouts, “too big to fail”, sweetheart government contracts, etc., is “capitalism”. I object to all that, too. If we could help them understand the difference between “crapitalism” and real free market capitalism, I think we’d find a lot of common cause with them.
* As evidence one need not look any farther than the NY Times’ favorite pseudo-economist Paul Krugman. But there seems to be hope: this weekend the Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to Thomas Sargent and Christopher Sims for their “rational expectations” models, which posit that people do not respond passively to changes in economic policy or circumstances, but rather anticipate future conditions and adjust according to their best interests. In other words, people aren’t (long) fooled by politicians’ tricks, such as inflating the money supply or spending on bogus “stimulus” plans. That doesn’t seem particularly gound-breaking to me, but in these days of mindless partial-Keynsianism and “headless chicken” economic and monetary policies (witness that perpetual idiot Michael Bloomberg screaming for government to “do something”, anything, it matters not what) a little rationality is refreshing.
The Private Bank known as the Federal Reserve Bank lends at interest the currency it created for the United States Goverment. This creates endless debt. Why is that a good thing for the customer of that bank?