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]
|
Samizdata quote of the day The message was simple: Question the COVID narrative, and there will be consequences.
But there were still many brave enough to buck the mob mentality. And as time has gone on and scientific data on COVID and pandemic restrictions have become more accurate, it has become clear that the dissenters were right. Lockdowns didn’t save lives; in fact, they likely cost more lives than they saved. Masks, specifically the cloth masks experts pushed on the public, are ineffective at stopping the spread of the virus and are harmful to children’s development. Hydroxychloroquine might actually help COVID patients in some cases. The list goes on.
Unfortunately, nonconformists have had to pay an enormous price for being right.
– Kaylee McGhee White
|
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.
|
The persecution of dissenting academics – and the threats against medical doctors (“we will take your license away”) has been despicable.
The facts of the crises are as followers….
Covid 19 came from Wuhan Institute in the People’s Republic of China and was the result of reseasch financed by Tony Fauci’s American government agency via Peter Daszak of the “Eco Health Alliance” (Peter D. also works for the World Health Organisation – and was responsible for a lot of the disinformation they put out, in order to cover up his own negligence).
The World Health Organisation slavishly followed the lies of the People’s Republic of China – pretending that the virus was not from lab, and even claiming that the virus was no real threat to the world (Tony Fauci also echoed these lies – I remember him doing this as late January 2020).
Then there was a change – with the international authorities demanding “lockdowns” and claiming that they had been a great success in China.
Leaving aside the basic point that nothing the People’s Republic of China dictatorship says can be trusted (Dr Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum – you and your son do NOT control Chairman XI, he controls you, you are not the Puppet Master, you are the PUPPET), there was no way that an assessment of the success or otherwise of the Chinese policy and the drawing up of detailed “lockdown” policies could have occurred by March 2020.
I know I have been sent detailed “Twitter timelines” – but I have been in politics for many years, and I am TELLING you that it could not have been done in this amount of time. It takes longer to decide to move a bin from one street to another (not actually move the bin – just decide to do it) than the “Twitter timeline” says it took to draw up and implement (actually implement) the entire Covid policy. These policies simply can not have been drawn up and implemented in this amount of time – they must have already been “on the shelf” as it were, ready to be used. In short – NOT a specific response to Covid 19.
As Mr Ed is fond of pointing out “book shops were closed, but bike shops were kept open” these policies were very DETAILED. Detailed policies take a very long time to work out and implement.
The “lockdowns” did NOT “save lives” – that they would not was pointed out by many medical academics from the start – and in response to that opposition the persecution started (with independent medical academics being smeared-smeared-smeared).
Worse was to come….
Early Treatment of the disease, which could have saved most of the people who died, was also smeared – smeared, smeared, smeared.
For example, every time President Trump tried to give people access to Early Treatment he was systematically undermined by the government machine.
Think about that – they knew “lockdowns” would not work, yet they pushed them anyway – knowing they would do incredible levels of damage to society.
And they knew that there was Early Treatment that could save most of the people who were dying – and they smeared and blocked it.
Horrific – just horrific.
As for the injections.
It has been suggested that the reason that Early Treatment was smeared (which cost such vast numbers of human lives) was so that Emergency Authorisation could be got for the injections of experimental medications.
If there is effective Early Treatment one can not, at least under American law, get Emergency Authorisation for the experimental medications. So people such as Tony Fauci had an interest in smearing Early Treatment (i.e. in a allowing vast numbers of people to die – who could have been saved).
As for the injections themselves. There is some evidence that they make some forms of Covid 19 less severe – and thus, YES, the injections can save the lives of some people.
However, they do not prevent people getting or passing on the virus.
There is also increasing evidence that the injections harm (even KILL) some people – this has been discussed in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, and no one denied that the injections KILL some people (the argument is over how many people are harmed).
Healthy children are not at great risk from Covid 19 – but young people (especially young males) can be greatly harmed by the injections.
Therefore to suggest that they, healthy young people, be injected with these medications – is utterly irresponsible.
“But an official committee TOLD me to do it”.
If an official committee of “experts” told you to jump off a high cliff – would you do that as well?
If you do not seek independent opinions and just follow “official bodies” – what is the point of elections?
What is the point of YOU (the elected minister) Sir?
As for the “Woke” Corporations….
Well the lady at Levi was a leftist, but the demands simply became too much for her.
That is the point – it is not a matter of submitting to X demands and then going back to work selling jeans (or whatever), the demands NEVER STOP. There are always MORE demands.
That is why one can not work with the “Woke” Corporations.
How can one tell which Corporations are Woke?
Ask them what they think of the “Diversity, Inclusion and Equity”, i.e. Uniformity, Exclusion and Injustice, agenda.
If they say they are in support of it – walk away, because eventually they will dismiss you anyway (no matter how much you crawl and beg for your job).
And do not buy products from these Woke Corporations – they insist that “the personal is political”, well O.K. then.
“But Paul, the Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) system will FORCE all Corporations to be Woke Marxist”.
Well that is a good reason to BAN the ESG system – you forbid commercial Corporations (such as banks and insurance companies) to discriminate on political “Social Justice” “Environmental Justice” grounds.
Some American States are in the process of doing that.
“But we are libertarians – we can not support State bans”.
The ESG system is being pushed by GOVENRMENT (the Federal Reserve and so on) – it is quite legitimate to use the Sword of State against the Sword of State.
Indeed if you do not meet force with force (meet the pushing of the ESG system by BANNING the ESG system) then you will be destroyed.
There can be no compromise with the forces of “Social Justice” (i.e. of injustice) – you destroy it, or it will destroy you.
I repeat – political discrimination by Corporations (such as banks and insurance companies – but yes even people making and selling jeans) is being pushed by government and Central Bank (Federal Reserve and so on) action.
Therefore it is legitimate to FORBID it (BAN it), by State action – say in West Virginia or South Dakota or Texas (Texas is a big market).
If you are a commercial corporation you are benefitting by state laws (for example you are paying much lower TAX than a privately owned business pays – and you get LEGAL PROTECTION from being sued as individual shareholders).
No more political discrimination – no more “we are closing your bank account because you are a reactionary bigot” or “we are letting you go from your job because we do not like your politics, you are against abortion or Gay Marriage”.
The only way to stop the Sword of ESG system is with the Sword of banning it – banning Collectivist “Cancel Culture” by which individuals and business enterprises are attacked for their political and cultural beliefs. “No bank account for you – you are a coal mine and coal violates Environmental Justice” (and all the rest of it).
The left started this – they picked you the Sword of State, you either pick it up as well or they will WIPE YOU OUT.
“But we can just go to another company” – the ESG system is to be UNIVERSAL (via the financial system) so good luck with “go to another company”.
Go to another company when two payment processors (Mastercard and Visa) dominate so much? And when a handful of banks control so much. And when a handful of COMPUTER COMPANIES control so much?
Pull the other one – it has got bells on.
I am reminded of the late Milton Friedman coming out AGAINST State “Right to Work” laws.
“Such laws are an intervention in the free market” said Milton Friedman.
He seemed unable to grasp that other government interventions by the Federal Government meant THERE WAS NO FREE MARKET – and that State Right to Work laws were a vital counterbalance to this.
The alternative being unlimited “Collective Bargaining” and MASS UNEMPLOYMNET.
The “apolitical corporation” does not exist (because they are controlled by human beings – and human beings have political and cultural opinions) – it may have existed in Milton Friedman’s mind, but it does not exist in the real world.
Whilst there is a Credit Money monetary and financial system (and I am AGAINST that – but that is a different discussion) one can not allow the handful of Corporations that control so much of the economy (the other half of the economy being government spending – so much for the free market), to discriminate on political grounds.
If you allow them to that – you will have no business (because no bank account of payment processing or computer access) and you will have no job.
You might as well just take up a firearm and blow your brains out – if you allow the corporations to discriminate on political grounds (i.e. the ESG system).
Of course, if you are willing to get rid of the (Cantillon Effect) Credit Money system and of the legal advantages for Corporations (Milton Freidman actually wanted to make these legal advantages even more extreme – by abolishing Corporation Tax whilst leaving Income Tax in place, a policy which would have destroyed almost all independent business enterprises in the United States), then the situation changes.
If you have lots of business enterprises (all privately owned) with investment being from Real Savings of actual cash money (gold or silver – or some other independent money) then it is not necessary to formally ban the Environmental and Social Governance system (the Western version of the Chinese Social Credit system).
But whilst so much of the economy is dominated by a handful of Corporations (controlled by hired managers – from the universities) then ESG “Cancel Culture” must be formally banned – no more “we are letting you go because we do not like your politics” or “we are closing the bank account of your business – because you are a bigot”.
Paul Marks wrote:
There was actually an article in the New York Times back in March 2020, before the Cathedral had decided to proclaim that COVID tyranny was a partisan issue, that explained the origins of lockdowns. The policy originated in 2008 with a single government bureaucrat with no medical training who got the idea from his 14 year old daughter’s school science project. It was highly controversial when proposed, with a bunch of people even within the government who did have medical training pointing out that it could not possibly be anything but harmful. However, the government adopted it anyway and had it waiting, ready to put into effect just as soon as the corporate press could successfully panic a sufficiently large population of hysterical idiots into going along with it.
Ken Hagler – that is interesting and I do not doubt what you say.
However, it does not explain why many other countries followed this insane lockdown policy – some before the United States. Nor does it explain why many countries (such as Britain) had the smearing of Early Treatment. Most people who died could have been saved – yet very few people seem to care about this.
By the way – concerning other matters….
“Corporation Tax is double taxation” (Milton Friedman) – no it is not because most shares are not owned by individuals, they are owned by institutions (such as pension funds) with their own special tax status. Getting rid of Corporation Tax whilst KEEPING INCOME TAX would be insane, it would hand over what is left of the economy to the Corporations destroying the last independent business enterprises (especially as it is much easier to take the personal assets of individual business owners than it is the personal assets of Corporate managers).
“Corporations have, legally, to serve the interests of shareholders” – in theory yes, in practice NO.
This myth that “the corporations just serve the interests of their shareholders” was exploded when Lloyds Bank deliberately destroyed shareholder value by taking over the bankrupt Halifax Bank of Scotland – because the Corporate Manager at the top of Lloyds wanted to please his pal Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Shareholders complained – and the government courts told them to jump in the nearest lake.
So the idea that ordinary shareholders can stop “Woke” (Frankfurt School Marxist) ESG Cancel Culture is just silly.
“If you do not like the United States – go live somewhere else”.
The example I have just given, Lloyds Bank, was from BRITAIN.
And the ESG system is getting all over the Western world – it is part of the United Nations Agenda 2030.
Not “paranoia” – it is the, horrific, way we are going.
People who dissent from the ruling political and cultural doctrines (i.e. on “Social Justice” including “Environmental Justice” and “Racial Justice” and the general “Diversity, Inclusion and Equity”, i.e. Uniformity, Exclusion and Injustice agenda) are to be excluded from economic life.
Your business will not be able to function (the banks and payment processers, and the computer companies, will see to that) and EVENTUALLY you will not be able to get a job either.
Unless the entire Credit Money system goes – then States are going to have to bring in laws BANNING the ESG Cancel Culture system in their area.
If your goal is a great reset, you have to crash what was originally there.
“If you do not like the United States – go live somewhere else”.
Hence all the Western boltholes, Australia NZ and Canada being run by WEF clones and being the vanguard of state fascism.
On the intellectual corruption of government courts – I am reminded of two other areas.
The endless pro bank rulings over the centuries (including in “Free Banking” Scotland) – where people produced before the courts the contracts that the banks had broken (not handing over physical gold) and the courts, essentially, told the people to go fornicate with themselves. “It is just a suspension of cash payments” or other sickening responses.
And now we have the farce of the January 6th (2021) “legal process”.
“Make a deal” – why, I am innocent!
“Because you will be facing a jury that is from an area (D.C.) that is about 96% Democrat”.
“And you can not even have your own lawyer – as only lawyers who are licensed to practice in D.C. can represent you in the trial”.
In short “your lawyer” may well be someone who HATES you (well over 90% of lawyers in D.C. are Democrats) who will be actively trying to undermine your defence. Having laughed while you were tortured and abused in prison.
And the jury will be made up of people who HATE you as well – who might as well be screaming “kill him! kill him! kill him!” at the very start of the trial.
The openly rigged Presidential election of 2020 (with vast numbers of “votes” that had nothing to do with real voters), and a “legal system” that is so twisted it might as well be a corkscrew.
And the United States is lecturing other countries on democracy and Civil Liberties?
As Roger Stone and others said when presented with Kangaroo Courts where both the Judge and the Jury openly hated them – “what is the f…. point of participating in this farce”.
Fauci is a ghoul. He was in his element killing gay men in the ’80s, flogging the wrong treatments and spreading lies and, … yes, disinformation.
“nonconformists have had to pay an enormous price for being right.”
No doubt. But when, in the whole span of human history, has that NOT been the case?
‘But there were still many brave enough to buck the mob mentality.’
Unfortunately, during each successive emergency, there will be fewer until there are none.
‘Think about that – they knew “lockdowns” would not work, yet they pushed them anyway – knowing they would do incredible levels of damage to society.’
They pushed the lockdowns DESPITE knowing they would do incredible damage to society or BECAUSE they knew it would do incredible damage to society?
‘How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’
Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.
“Corporation Tax is double taxation” (Milton Friedman) – no it is not because most shares are not owned by individuals, they are owned by institutions (such as pension funds) with their own special tax status. – Paul Marks
No, Uncle Milt was correct. Corporation tax is double taxation. To understand why, you have to know about what economists call “tax incidence”, that is, understanding who actually carries the burden of paying a particular tax. It is not always the person or institution the tax is nominally levied on.
Economists, regardless of political leaning, have agreed for over a century that corporations do not pay the taxes levied on them. And it’s not just a matter of corporations “passing them on” to consumers. The burden of corporation tax falls on three groups of people (note: “people” – human beings, not institutions): shareholders, who pay in the form of lower dividends; employees, who pay in the form of lower compensation packages (salaries, perks, etc.); and consumers, who pay in the form of higher prices. The only argument has been about what percentage of the burden falls on which group.
It is correct that the greatest group of shareholders is pension funds. But that hits real people too. Lower dividends paid means smaller contributions to pension funds, which in turns means a poorer retirement for people.
So yes, to make people’s retirements poorer, to deny employees better compensation packages, to make consumers pay higher prices, and then on top of all that to tax those same people’s incomes is indeed a form of double taxation.
Well Philip Scott Thomas – you would, therefore, destroy every independent business. There is a reason that (for example) Google spent a fortune on doubling the State Income Tax in Arizona – because they do not pay it and their business competitors do (“but Economists, regardless of political leaning, have agreed that….” – it is not my fault that “economists, regardless of political leaning”, say stupid things) – as for what the money is to be spent on – more money for the education system (of course) the “Woke” filth of Google love the idea of yet money being spent on indoctrinating children with Frankfurt School “Woke” doctrines.
In your world Mr Thomas, independent business people would continue to pay income tax – but the corporations would not pay corporation tax, so they would destroy the independent business enterprises (the ones they have already destroyed) and the economy would be controlled by a handful of vast, and WOKE, corporations – with opposition to them (and the government that supports them) being punished by with no business, no job, no home. Very Agenda 2030 – thanks for nothing. And Sir you do not say one word about ending the Credit Money (Cantillon Effect) subsidies these Corporations get – another of “Uncle Milt’s” blind spots – he did not seem to notice where the Federal Reserve and banker money actually went (clue it does not appear in everyone’s pockets equally – it goes FIRST to a certain small group, this has been know about Credit Money expansion for THREE HUNDRED YEARS, since the time of Richard Cantillon, yet “Uncle Milt” did not seem to notice).
According to “Uncle Milt” Benjamin Strong was a wonderful head of the New York Federal Reserve in the 1920s – in reality Benjamin Strong created a vast Credit Money bubble (to subsidise his beloved Corporations) and so made the Great Depression inevitable.
To get the Great Depression totally wrong (in order to push the idea that the problem was not the creation of the Credit Money, but that the Federal Reserve did not carry on trying to endlessly prop it up) is a rather big blunder for “economists, regardless of their political leaning” Mr Thomas.
But then these are the same people who said that paying people money NOT to work (which I believe “Uncle Milt” called the Negative Income Tax) was a good idea – in reality it creates an ever growing underclass and undermines the very basis of civilisation.
And these “economists, regardless of political leaning” also supported outsourcing manufacturing to the People’s Republic China (which they called “free trade” – although it is nothing of the sort), that is not turning out to be a good idea Mr Thomas. In fact this FAKE “free trade” (it is NOT free trade) is a death sentence for the Western World.
Talking of supporters of the Corporate State….. and, I remind people again, the vast Corporations are, mostly, WOKE FILTH (in the world they are building political and cultural dissent will lead to people being totally excluded from economic life – dissenters would be left begging in the streets) – they are friends of Davos and the PRC, they are NOT friends of free people. For example, the idea that the institutional investors (the pension funds and so on) are controlled by ordinary “real” people is so absurd I will not even dignify the notion by calling it a lie.
Today I thought the Economist magazine (Corporate-State-R-Us) finally had good article in it – a defence of Free Speech against the servants of Davos (and United Nations Agenda 2030 – not “paranoia” because Justin Trudeau openly admits it, indeed he boasts of it) who call themselves the Canadian government.
But NO – because the article said that the “Canadian government” was correct to enforce a “vaccine mandate” (compulsory injections of stuff that would not be called a vaccine under the medical definitions of up to a year or so ago) – to “prevent the spread of the virus”.
To “prevent the spread of the virus” – the injections DO NOT “prevent the spread of the virus”, but the Economist magazine just gets away with this blatant LYING. They lie and lie and lie – and there is nothing (nothing) I can do about it. And there was another article about pushing all this in Africa – the whole world must be under the drug companies, everyone must be injected (every year – for ever).
As for the other demand of the truckers and other ordinary people – an end to the Electronic Tagging system (the regime demand that everyone must have an electronic code to travel about and do business) – the Economist magazine did not mention that at all.
It is NOT about Covid – because this electronic system was being pushed before Covid was developed by the research funded by Tony Fauci and Peter “Eco Health Alliance” (and World Health Organisation) Peter Daszak.
But one must not mention the electronic system – oh no, Davos (and the rest of the “international community” – i.e. the Corporate State) would be upset if one mentions the electronic system that is being pushed.
Well “Uncle Milt” – is this what you really wanted? A handful of vast corporations joined-at-the-hip with the Credit Bubble banks and governments, pushing (Agenda 2030) electronic tagging and all the rest of it?
No I do NOT think this is what Milton Friedman wanted – indeed I think if Milton Friedman was alive today he would hate the Corporate State, and its apologists, as much as I do.
We all made mistakes back in the 1980s and before – I certainly did.
And one of our biggest mistakes was to fatally misunderstand the Corporations – and their relationship with the Credit Money system and with governments.
I was very stupid (I admit it) – I did not see them for what they really are. But now it is obvious – and someone is for or against the “international community” (Davos, U.N. Agenda 2030, the People’s Republic of China of Chairman Xi – and so on), and I am against.
Those who are for the Corporate State (the “international community”) – can burn in Hell.
Mr Marks
There is a reason that (for example) Google spent a fortune on doubling the State Income Tax in Arizona – because they do not pay it and their business competitors do
That is nothing to do with tax incidence. If anything, it is regulatory capture.
in reality Benjamin Strong created a vast Credit Money bubble (to subsidise his beloved Corporations) and so made the Great Depression inevitable.
No. Friedman and his colleague Anna Schwartz dealt with this in “A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960.” Yes, Benjamin Strong suppressed interest rates, but it wasn’t to support corporations. Rather, it was because Winston Churchill, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought Britain back on to the gold standard after WWI at the pre-war rate, which was too high. Investment funding flowed out of Britain to the US. Strong suppressed the interest rate in the US to make that strategy less appealing as a favour to Churchill. So one could, I suppose, argue that it was Churchill who caused the Great Depression. That would be a fun thesis to defend.
When Strong died in October 1928 the Fed had no strong leader. They ended up jacking up the interest rate, and all that mal-investment of the 1920’s was shown to be as worthless as it was. Classic Austrian Business Cycle. Nowt more.
And for whatever little it’s worth, it’s “Mr Scott Thomas”.
Mr Thomas.
If you think that Google would have supported the doubling of CORPORATION Tax in Arizona then you are mistaken – that is because they pay Corporation tax (which the idiotic “economists” deny) and they do not pay income tax – independent small business enterprises file under the income tax – which Google supported (spent money supporting) the doubling of. The “economists” also thought that outsourcing manufacturing to the People’s Republic of China would be a good idea (that it would be “free trade”) – do you support that as well Mr Thomas?
Wake up and smell the coffee – the “Woke” Corporations support lower (not higher) Corporation Tax precisely because they do pay the tax (not because they do not), and they support higher income tax on owner-manager business enterprises because they do not pay the income tax (not because they do pay it).
Did you read the article? The lady is a leftist – but it did not help her. You can not reason with a corporation – because they are an artificial person (they have no reason) and you can not appeal to their moral conscience – because they are an artificial person (they have no moral conscience), this lady would have gone on her “apology tour” and they would have forced her out anyway (all her ritual humiliation – Maoist “struggle secessions” and so on) would not have helped her.
“But I am Mr Thomas – I pretend that Corporations do not pay Corporation Tax, they will love me” – no they will not Mr Thomas (they are not capable of love – they are artificial persons), one day the “HR Equality and Diversity” people will come for you – and nothing you have done for the Corporations (no matter how much money you have got them) will matter at all. The Corporations are Woke Filth – an important point you keep missing (just as you do not understand which taxes they pay – and which taxes they do not pay).
As for “Classic Austrian Business Cycle” – YES the late 1920s and the early 1930s were precisely that. The problem, Mr Thomas, is that you do not understand what the Austrian Business Cycle is. And neither did Milton Friedman.
Montague Norman of the Bank of England and Ben Strong of the New York Federal Reserve were not trying to please Winston Churchill – they were trying to please the corporations.
Where do you think the Credit Money goes Mr Thomas? Does it magically appear in my storm damaged house? No it goes, via the banking system, FIRST to certain interests – the “Cantillon Effect” (named after Richard Cantillon) has been known for some 300 years Mr Thomas – but you and “A Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960” does not seem to have noticed.
Milton Friedman was a follower of Irving Fisher – who believed that the “price level” must be kept “stable” by increasing the money supply (the credit money supply) and handing out the money via the banking system.
In short “Uncle Milt” missed the basic point that the “money supply” subsidises Corporate interests (that is the point of the whole SCAM, FRAUD, Mr Thomas).
Just as “Uncle Milt” did not understand the effect of welfare payments (whether called “negative income tax” or any other name), and did not understand Corporations and Corporation Tax.
No offence meant to “Uncle Milt” as he died many years ago – before these things were made brutally obvious. I was at least as ignorant at that time.
The one good thing about today is that Google and the other Corporations have made their evil (and it is evil – even though they are artificial persons), obvious. On taxation and everything else – their position has been made clear.
Money must be independent of the state and of the BANKS (which are Credit Bubble enterprises that depend on the state), and it must not be increased to “keep the price level stable” (i.e. to subsidise the corporations).
And Corporations must NOT pay a lower rate of tax than a business owned by an actual person. If the rate of income tax is zero (as it is, for example, in South Dakota and Wyoming) then, O.K., you can have a Corporation tax of zero (although the whole legal idea of the Corporation is unsound – see later). But you can not levy a high tax rate on a business owned by an individual and not on Corporations – and that must include such terrible things as “Inheritance Tax” (the death tax) and Capital Gains Tax. If these things exist on individuals (which they should not) then Corporations must be hit by the to.
Indeed the legal arguments for the state creation of Corporations are not good – as Corporations are not “neutral” in political and cultural matters (if only this was so – but it is not so), and do NOT serve the interests of ordinary share holders.
If you think that the HR Diversity and Inclusion types who control pension funds and the like give a damn about ordinary pensioners (and so on) you are mistaken Mr Thomas.
I trust you will at least have heard of the Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) system, Mr Thomas?
Do you thing that the “Davos” and United Nations types (the Corporation types – in the banks, insurance companies and so on) who are introducing the ESG system (the Western version of the Chinese Social Credit system) care about ordinary customers or ordinary shareholders?
They do not care about ordinary customers and or ordinary shareholders Mr Thomas – why should they care about ordinary people who are (according to them) inherently “racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic and Islamophobic”.
The old world (and its people) are inherently evil (according to them) – and must be replaced by a wonderful new world of Davos and United Nations Agenda 2030.
So it is time to pick sides.
Either you are for the Woke Corporations Mr Thomas – or you are for liberty.
You can not be on both sides – it is time to choose.
And apologetics such as “the Corporations do not pay Corporation Tax – let us just have Income Tax and hand over what is left of the independent economy over to a handful of Corporations joined-at-the-hip with world governance” will not win you any Brownie points with them Mr Thomas.
They will destroy you anyway. No matter how faithfully you serve them.
I remind you what happened to the lady in the article.
In case some people do not know…..
Irving Fisher and Milton Friedman were arch opponents of the Austrian School.
To Fisher (and Friedman) increasing the (Credit) money supply to keep the “price level” stable was fine.
Indeed the problem after 1929 was (according to them) that the Federal Reserve did not do ENOUGH to prop up the Credit Bubble economy.
Milton Friedman would have been fine with the antics since 2008 (the antics of the Central Banks to keep the Corporate farce going) – indeed the heads of the Federal Reserve specifically citied him.
The bubble economy must not be allowed crash – the Corporate bubble is sacred.
Fisher and Friedman wrote as it a “Money Supply” increase of, say, 5% meant that everyone had 5% more money.
They never seemed to grasp what Richard Cantillon pointed out 300 years ago – the Credit Money increase goes to certain business interests, it is a way of subsidising them at the expense of everyone else.
The “Cantillon Effect”.
F.A. Hayek wrote (in “New Studies”) that the money supply was not like water – it was like treacle.
It does not run everywhere at once – it piles up in certain places.
And some people (or rather certain artificial persons) get sticky fingers.
That is the point of the Credit Money expansion – that is what it is for.
To benefit certain interests – at the expense of everyone else.
“But the price level is stable” – not relevant, not in the 1920s or any other time (so Alan Greenspan Fed Chairman and later Fed Chairmen were utterly wrong).
The monetary and financial system is a scam (a fraud) which benefits certain interests at the expense of everyone else.
Contrary to Karl Marx – the concentration of the economy is not a natural process, it is artificially produced.
Let me fix that for you:
Either you are for reality by pointing out that corporation taxes are just passed on, or you are doing the equivalent of virtue signally about liberty without actually helping.
Paul, one can be pro-reality and still pro-liberty.
Carnivorous Bookworm.
In your “reality” Google did not support the doubling of income tax in the State of Arizona – because (in your reality) Corporations pay the individual income tax, not the Corporation Tax. In your reality they most likely pay the Inheritance Tax and the Capital Gains Tax as well (in the real world they do not), most likely in your reality the Corporations do not offset local Property Taxes against their Corporation Tax.
Oh yes – it is not just “virtue signally” when the Corporations back Collectivist local government – they know they can “pass on” (as you put it) a lot of the Property Tax increases.
Your policy, that of getting rid of the Corporation Tax (because you claim that Corporations are not hit by it) and keeping income tax, would destroy every independent business – a lot of them have already gone. For example ONE THIRD of the businesses enterprises in California were destroyed by the Amazon supported lockdown – they did NOT reopen.
Is that being “pro reality” Sir? Is that “helping”? Destroying what independent business enterprises that are left.
How about the “free trade” (it is NOT free trade) of outsourcing manufacturing to the People’s Republic China – is that “pro liberty” – to destroy the Western world and hand over all power to the Communist Party of Chairman Xi.
Or how about that lovely endless Corporate SUBSIDIES from the Central Banks and the Credit Bubble banks (which are dependent on the Central Banks).
A small group of enterprises benefiting from endless money-created-from-nothing – at the expense of everyone else.
A Cantillon Effect economy – is that your “liberty” Sir?
By the way, yet again, if Corporation tax does not matter….. (as you claim).
OK then – by your own argument Sir, Corporation Tax should be increased to 100% – as (according to you) it does not hit corporations at all, it is just “passed on”, so Corporations would be just as competitive at 100% Corporation Tax as at 0%. And they would not resent that at all – as it would not (according to you Sir) make owner-manager enterprises any more competitive against them.
I do not think you would like it if I took your argument seriously and increased Corporation Tax to 100% – I suspect that you would suddenly change your tune (whatever your real name is – and whatever your actual address is).
By the way – some Corporate manager types might not actually care, as they would just change the enterprise into a “non profit making trust” and just plunder the business for pay and perks.
After all – they are well on the way to doing that anyway, in many bodies Corporate.
They might be concerned about Turn-Over tax (of the sort that Texas and some other States have) – because they could not play the “we are not making a profit – so we pay no tax” game (whilst heaping Property Taxes, and so on, on the independent business enterprises).
Talking of bodies Corporate – I am reminded of the problems of the oldest (and, in some ways, still the most important) body Corporate – the Roman Catholic Church (the source of so much, good and bad, over the centuries).
I am NOT thinking of how they (as a “charitable trust” of a religious nature) do not pay Corporation Tax (although I think they would NOT agree with the statement that “Corporation Tax is just passed on – so the Corporation Tax is no harm at all to bodies Corporate”) – but of their support for the “Woke” agenda.
In past ages priests would risk torture and death to give people the sacraments – now some priests (and Bishops) insist on Covid “vaccinations” (even for children) and masks – or no sacraments. They know perfectly well that the cloth masks are useless and that the injections do NOT prevent people catching or passing on the virus – and they know that the injections are far more of a risk to healthy children than the virus is, they-know-but-they-do-not-care.
It is a matter of religious faith – not faith in God (remember to the Social Gospel and Liberation Gospel types, Protestant as much as Catholic, God is a “metaphor for the people” and Heaven is a “metaphor for the future society”) – but religious faith in the AGENDA.
Invite United Nations and World Economic Forum types to the Vatican? Yes they did it – and praised them to the skies.
Claim that the People’s Republic of China tyranny is the embodiment of Christian Social Teaching? Yes they did that to.
Get that old KGB agent-of-influence Cardinal Theodore McCarrick (the sexual abuser) – to make a special deal with the Communist Party in China (and its fake “Church” – with its pictures of Chairman Xi on the altar) to sell out real Christians to torture and death?
Yes – the “Woke” even did that.
Anyway….
The Economist magazine had an article on how some “right wing” Catholics are bit annoyed with what is going in in Rome – although they did NOT mention any of the above (which is why I just did).
And according to the Economist magazine who are these “right wing” Catholics?
Does it mean “Church Militant” (based in Detroit), or “Life-Site News” (John Henry Weston’s people), or perhaps they mean independent commentators such as “Return to Tradition” or Dr Taylor Marshall?
No – none of them were mentioned at all.
The “right wing” Catholics (who, for some strange reason, are worried about what is going on) are “EWTN” Eternal Word Television News.
EWTN – about as mainstream as you can get, this is the “right wing” according to the Economist magazine.
Well if they think EWTN is “right wing” (because it is based in boo-hiss “Alabama” – and anything in the South must be “right wing” by definition) then no wonder they think that Liberation Theology Jesuit Francis is mainstream.
Nothing to see here folks, all is fine, just move along now.
As the Davos Corporate crowd laugh.
If I have not mentioned it (being side tracked by people, writing under fake names, who claim that Corporation Tax does not matter – but would change their tune very fast if it was greatly increased) there is a book on Early Treatment of Covid 19.
“Overcoming the Covid Darkness” by Dr Brian Tyson and Dr George Fareed – how they successfully treated more than seven thousand patients.
Consequences?
Well yes – but (for example) Dr Tyson has made his peace with God. If they come for his medical license, or they push him in front of a truck (as he has pointed out – he is NOT suicidal, any death that looks like suicide will not be a real suicide), he is mentally (and spiritually) prepared for that.
I think, at this point, we all (religious or atheist) have to be prepared to die. Otherwise, ironically enough, life will be made a living-Hell.
After the “apology tour” for the crime of dissent – the torment would not stop, the corporations (and so on) would just carry on with the world governance Diversity, Inclusion, Equity (DIE as Jordan Peterson calls it) agenda. The agenda truly being Uniformity, Exclusion and Injustice.
The torment would just go on and on – which is why this lady was wise to get out of the Corporation (in this case Levi).
I comment as Bulldog Drummond because I grew up reading the series, but my actual name is John Drummond. I’m also pretty much impossible to fire (major shareholder in the company I work at). But for most people with a family to support, keeping your job is quite important. So if you can’t figure out why many use pseudonyms then you’re a fool.
I’ve got to say, Marks, sometimes I wonder whose side you’re actually on. Not only are you hijacking a thread that’s not about corporation tax, you treat people who are clearly on the side of the angels appallingly. Seriously, screw you mate. Just stick to your usual obsession with early treatment (where you’re indisputably correct) and don’t be such an arse about issues that really are open to debate.
It’s important to THINK about the implication of “Question the COVID narrative, and there will be consequences.”
What does that fact, in conjunction with similar evidence, mean really? What does it point to? What is the TRUE FINAL implication of all that?
ACTIVE resistance against the criminal establishments around the world will greatly increase the sooner someone TRULY understands that the ruling cabal and their minions, anywhere around the globe, are PSYCHOPATHS… check out The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Room
By “TRULY understands” I mean that Hollywood flicks and the entertainment industry at large have presented a deliberately erroneous picture of psychopaths which keeps the public misinformed about what and who psychopaths really are (eg most psychopaths are not overtly violent) but they are ALWAYS exploiters, deceivers, liars, manipulators, and destroyers (the Highly Destructive Fake Covid “Pandemic” is ONE fitting example out of countless others) , and therefore they are NOT people to ever respect, listen to, admire, vote for, follow and obey BUT to ACTIVELY fight and jail for life (see cited source above).
Mr Drummond.
According to you Corporation Tax does not matter (it is just passed on) – O.K then increase it to 90% (or 100%) if it really does-not-matter. According to you that would not hit the competitiveness of a corporation (against an independent business) – so it wold be fine, according to you.
Remember that is YOUR argument Mr Drummond – NOT mine. So “screw you mate”.
And I did not “hijack” the thread – if you check you will see I STARTED the thread. And the post itself was about how a corporation (yes a corporation – not the government) was essentially forcing even a modern left-liberal out of her job (by insisting on endless ritual humiliation – for her “crime” of telling the truth). This is becoming the norm – and under the ESG (Environment and Social Governance) system will (essentially) become universal among large corporations and those under their influence.
It is clearly not a good idea to have the economy dominated by the government and handful of corporations that are joined at the hip with government – via the Credit Money banking system (Cantillon Effect) and (yes) by tax advantages.
By the way… both natural resource rich Wyoming and natural resource NOT rich South Dakota has both a State Income Tax of ZERO – and a State Corporation Tax of ZERO (and no turnover tax).
The Federal Government did not have an income tax till 1913 – I think the Federal Corporation Tax came in 1909 but I am not sure (without checking).
I trust, Mr Drummond, that there is one point on which we can agree – the ESG system has to be banned, banks and insurance companies can not have that sort of power over other business enterprises.
You would not like to be told that your business can not have access to payment services (and so on) – because it violated “Social Justice” or “Environmental Justice” – and I would AGREE with you.
Financial “Cancel Culture” has to be stopped.
And, sadly, the only way that is going to happen (in an economy dominated by a few financial entities) is by government action – intervention AGAINST other intervention (the Sword used against the Sword).
That is why I support the banning of aspects of the ESG system by some American States – indeed I wish these proposed Bills went much further and banned political considerations (discrimination – Cancel Culture) from finance entirely. No Corporation must be allowed to discriminate in business on political grounds – because there are only a few key players at “choke points” of the economy (such as banking and payment processing).
The alternative to banning the ESG system (and the rest of economic Cancel Culture) is to hit the Corporations (remove their tax advantages and their legal protections – as artificial persons) and I do not think Mr Drummond would like that.
If people can be ruthlessly excluded from economic life (by choke points in the economy being controlled by a handful of players – all with the same WEF or U.N. 2030 political and cultural agenda) on grounds of their political beliefs – then such things as the 1st Amendment are dead-letters.
Being “free” to starve in the street.
When Mastercard went Woke I predicted that Visa would also go Woke – because (between them) that was a classic “choke point” in the economy (payment processing).
And it is happening.
It was an entirely logical move by the left. As is the rest of what they are doing – move for move, it is very predictable (but very effective).
To be fair…. (yes even I am capable of fairness – sometimes, although I do not make a habit of it).
The late Milton Friedman held that a Corporation (and a Trust) were just entities to make money for shareholders – that they were NOT to have a political and cultural agenda (all those “Mission Statements” and so on – that started to creep as far back as the 1970s, starting with the Business Schools).
The left accused Milton Friedman of inventing a new concept of the Corporation (there are BBC business programmes that just start from the assumption that Milton Friedman invented a “new” concept of the apolitical Corporation), but he was really defending the traditional legal position. It was the left who were (and are) trying to create a new concept of what Corporations were supposed to be (a concept that would make them primarily about politics and culture).
Milton Friedman argued that, legally, this is what a Corporation was supposed to be – just a money making tool for the shareholders, NOT an organisation out to help create a “new world” where everyone would be enslaved (“for their own good”), by the WEF and UN – or by anyone else. That Corporations were not supposed to have a political and cultural agenda – that this should be a matter for individual shareholders with their own money and their own time.
The modern world, where people are persecuted by corporations for their political and cultural beliefs is NOT what Milton Friedman wanted – indeed he held that such things as “Ethical Investment” (i.e. seeking to remove people with “reactionary” political and cultural opinions from economic life – and leave them starving on the street) did not need to be made illegal – because, for Corporations, they already were illegal. That only individuals, with their own money (not the money of other people) could make decisions on political and cultural (not financial returns) grounds.
Something like the Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) system would be, to the late Milton Friedman, already illegal (for Corporations – not individuals) – so there would be no need (in his mind) to make the ESG system illegal, because (to him) it already was illegal – as a violation of the duty of Corporate Managers to maximise the financial returns for their share holders (who, in the mind of Milton Friedman, tended to be individuals – not the institutional shareholders or our world).
The difficulty is that the courts now reject that view of what a Corporation.
If, for example, a shareholder went to court saying “making our employees undergo Maoist “struggle sessions” and go on ritual humiliation “apology tours” for being “imperfect allies” of racial minorities (or whoever) is not what a Corporation is supposed to be about” the court would tell him-or-her to go away – with the words “most of the institutional shareholders seem to be fully on board with the Diversity, Inclusion and Equity agenda” ringing in their ears.
Milton Friedman (like, I suppose, Mr Drummond) would say that the solution was not to introduce new laws (banning Corporations from engaging in “ethical investment” or the ESG system, and persecuting their employees on political and cultural grounds – “you said the N word, out of work time, you are fired” or “you voted the wrong way – you are fired”) – but to enforce the existing law which (in his eyes) meant that all this was already illegal.
Illegal because, according to Milton Friedman, the sole duty of a corporation was to make money for the shareholders – not to engage in trying to create a “better world” which always turns out to be Hell-On-Earth.
If only the courts had the same view. In theory the tax advantages and legal immunities of corporations should go if they act on a political or cultural agenda (for example insisting that their employees express certain political and cultural opinions – for example in support of DIE, Diversity, Inclusion, Equity), but the courts do not, in practice, strip corporations of their tax and legal advantages for this behaviour. At least not often enough.
This comment is late to the party but here goes, maybe it will reach someone. I’m going to post the link without comment because it would be expletive filled. People, who know me, would be shocked that I know such language.
This is what covid idiocy has wrought.
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/02/20/cdc-quietly-lowers-the-bar-for-early-childhood-speech-development-n449892