Post: #26

(04-11-2017 10:04 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 04:32 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Austrian economics is even worse than the trickle-down-scam. Mises was financed by Rockefeller

Specious insinuation.

I cant decide if this is either odd or humorous that Austrian is being associated here with global elites. Could it be a fundamental lack of understanding here what the differences are between Austrian and Keynesian economics?

Post: #27

There are a myriad ways to fund a man without doing it directly via visible paper-trail especially if you are a trillionaire.

Austrian economics is almost identical to the economic policy advanced by Rockefeller's mistress Ayn Rand. Whether Mises opposed Rockefeller on some elements is irrelevant. A marxist willing to kill the Rockefeller family is still being financed by the globalists, they just keep an eye out for him and dispose of him when he is no longer useful.

But as I have said - it is a fake dead-end solution that will never become reality. However it did achieve the wider acceptance of more capital-oriented "free-market" "open-trade" policies. Ron Paul was a major proponent of those free trade policies.

We can discuss here forever what the elite truly would want, but the gold-standard would be great for the globalists. On the other hand it would crash the world economy instantly or at least over time since it is too restrictive and has the same problems, but just on the more dangerous deflationary route.

Austrian economics is a dead-end solution funded by the trillionaires - a true "liberal" solution can simply never come, and the capital-usury-driven one is simply too concentration in their own hands.

Post: #28

(04-11-2017 10:18 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  There are a myriad ways to fund a man without doing it directly via visible paper-trail especially if you are a trillionaire.

Austrian economics is almost identical to the economic policy advanced by Rockefeller's mistress Ayn Rand. Whether Mises opposed Rockefeller on some elements is irrelevant. A marxist willing to kill the Rockefeller family is still being financed by the globalists, they just keep an eye out for him and dispose of him when he is no longer useful.

But as I have said - it is a fake dead-end solution that will never become reality. However it did achieve the wider acceptance of more capital-oriented "free-market" "open-trade" policies. Ron Paul was a major proponent of those free trade policies.

We can discuss here forever what the elite truly would want, but the gold-standard would be great for the globalists. On the other hand it would crash the world economy instantly or at least over time since it is too restrictive and has the same problems, but just on the more dangerous deflationary route.

Austrian economics is a dead-end solution funded by the trillionaires - a true "liberal" solution can simply never come, and the capital-usury-driven one is simply too concentration in their own hands.

I am not familiar with the Rockefellers economic policies, or that Ayn Rand was their mistress. I am learning a lot here.

Elitists and globalists want control, how does a philosophy that advocates unadulterated marketplace freedom appeal to them?

Post: #29

(04-10-2017 07:00 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  I can only ask that you go through the maths again. If there is a specific step that is incorrect, please point it out. I reaffirm that there is no debt snowball effect.

The maths are absolutely on point. I really appreciate the effort you make to educate me. The issue I have is that there exists 100 dollars in your example. Where did this 100 dollars come from? Who issued them? Why is there no debt attached to them?

(04-10-2017 07:22 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Also on "society as a whole", society is just a collection of individuals. One person can choose not to be indebted. 100 people can choose not to be indebted. Everybody can choose not to be indebted. People do not have to be indebted. They simply choose to be because it meets their desires.

This boils down to the same basic problem I have: if no one is in debt, is there even money in circulation?

It might be that I am simply too illiterate when it comes to economics, but I still have the idea that this is not an easy topic, or at least a topic that is deliberately obscured and surrounded by disinformation. After all, so many people still believe that banks simply accept deposits of pre-existing money from savers and then lend them to borrowers. And many of does who know that banks create money, do believe in the "multiplier" of fractional reserve banking.

And how does it work for central banks? When they purchase government bonds to expand the monetary base, are they entitled to coupon payments (financed through taxation I suppose)?

Edit to make my question more clear.
I understand that the main role of commercial banks is money creation through loans. When they create a loan, they increase the risk of not meeting the balance payments, thus you pay interest to them for taking on this risk. This seems logical to me.

Central banks create money through the purchase of assets. And this is the part where I am stuck: the central bank creates money out of nothing, and uses that money to take ownership of real assets (for instance government bonds, which entitle them to coupon payments made by taxation of citizens).
Why does it make sense that the monetary base is not debt-free and that a country is in debt simply because it has a currency?

Post: #30

(04-09-2017 10:03 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  He said that Milton Friedman had contacted him after seeing his documentaries. Friedman said to him that he agrees with him 100% and that it is not enough to change the monetary system and the central bank - you had to abolish the fractional reserve system, because that is actually more powerful in terms of steering the economic cycles via money supply as well as a tool for concentration of wealth.

Friedman's point is obvious if you think about it. Imagine we moved to gold as money. Even then, there would be paper or electronic currency as a substitute for large transactions (that is what currency is, a money substitute). Any bank holding physical will still be empowered to lend on a fractional reserve basis, and to the extent they lend more than they have they by necessity are lending substitutes.

So even if you impose the rigor of gold on governments, you still have private credit creation and destruction as a result of fractional reserve banking.

In other words, the gold standard is not the panacea it is sometimes claimed to be, at least if fractional reserve banking persists.

That said, Austrian economics does a good job of explaining the flaws in the current system, and does not need to be perfect to be better than the status quo.

Also, the Weimar republic is not an example of Austrian economics. It was disasters like that which created the need for the Austrian school.

Post: #31

(04-19-2017 12:07 PM)PhDre Wrote:  The issue I have is that there exists 100 dollars in your example. Where did this 100 dollars come from? Who issued them? Why is there no debt attached to them?

The word dollar comes from the German coin the "thaler".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaler

Basically it was just a unit of weight of silver, similar to the British "pound sterling" (literally, a pound of sterling silver), and the Japanese "yen" (which just means "round" in Japanese, referring to a coin). Most money in history has been rare metals, for several reasons such as its durability and its divisibility etc.

Nowadays of course, due to a chain of historical events, the metals are replaced by "fiat currency" -- paper notes and imaginary dollars in the central bank computer. But these still have a rigid supply. Some people have remarked that central bank money is attached to debt because new money is always used to buy government bonds (which is effectively just printing money for the government, hence why they like it this way). But it doesn't have to be. Some central banks have used it to buy stocks from time to time.

(04-19-2017 12:07 PM)PhDre Wrote:  This boils down to the same basic problem I have: if no one is in debt, is there even money in circulation?

It might be that I am simply too illiterate when it comes to economics, but I still have the idea that this is not an easy topic, or at least a topic that is deliberately obscured and surrounded by disinformation. After all, so many people still believe that banks simply accept deposits of pre-existing money from savers and then lend them to borrowers. And many of does who know that banks create money, do believe in the "multiplier" of fractional reserve banking.
...
Edit to make my question more clear.
I understand that the main role of commercial banks is money creation through loans. When they create a loan, they increase the risk of not meeting the balance payments, thus you pay interest to them for taking on this risk. This seems logical to me.

Because again, there are two different things being called "money". One is money in the strict sense (i.e. cash, monetary "base", physical coins/bullion, or special legal tokens called "dollar bills" etc). The other is credit/debt (two sides of the same transaction).

So the problem is using the overly generalized word "money", when it is covering two distinct things. Cash and credit (usually on-demand credit from a large company like a bank). These two things aren't the same. A bank can "make" (extend) credit, but it cannot make cash. When the bank extends credit like this, it actually appears as two debts of equal amounts in opposite directions: the debt the customer has to the bank (e.g. due in 1 year), and the debt the bank has to the customer in the account containing the loaned money (due whenever the customer demands).

The core service the bank provides could better be termed "debt intermediation". They have to balance the different debt maturity desires of people in society. I want a 30 year home loan but I want to draw from my checking account instantly. Since these longer term loans to customers pay higher interest than the short term loans from customers, they make their profit from the difference.

Also worth noting that before governments got all heavy fisted and ridiculously intertwined in the financial system, the line between a "bank" and a normal company was much more blurry. You could even start your own bank with your own savings if you wanted, but nobody would accept them since the credit-worthiness wouldn't be high enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_cu...Bank_Notes

Post: #32

I'm totally clueless on economic matters but I have a few questions.

1) Which economic school of thought is mostly practiced by the West today? Austrian, Keynesian?

2) Is the current economic trajectory feasible for the near future or do we need to change course?

From my point of view, the system we have in place seems to be doing ok. Yes, some get fucked and some do the fucking (ultra-rich vs. poor). But overall, most people are in decent financial shape (though too many are living on credit). I can't really complain either, and I am firmly lower middle-class.

Post: #33

^ 1) Keynesian, which basically means "government intervention is good". Since governments are very powerful and invasive nowadays, they sponsor this type of propaganda. If you take a quick look at Keynes book "General Theory" the first thought you will have is "is this a joke?" because the guy is just blathering on like a mealy-mouthed pontificating idiot. But the point of that book, and his ideology if he had one, was never to answer questions. It was to provide obscurantist smokescreen to help the political class do what they wanted to do anyway -- be powerful and control every aspect of society.

In that way, Austrian economics can be considered a form of rebellion, or an expression of natural law versus the positive law of states.

2) Yes, but we're all waiting on the energy supply and storage issues to be rectified. There's a reason Rockefeller was the richest man who ever lived. He who controls the flow of energy controls everything. We're all waiting on fusion power to come through.

Post: #34

(04-19-2017 09:00 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I'm totally clueless on economic matters but I have a few questions.

1) Which economic school of thought is mostly practiced by the West today? Austrian, Keynesian?

2) Is the current economic trajectory feasible for the near future or do we need to change course?

From my point of view, the system we have in place seems to be doing ok. Yes, some get fucked and some do the fucking (ultra-rich vs. poor). But overall, most people are in decent financial shape (though too many are living on credit). I can't really complain either, and I am firmly lower middle-class.

1. Keynesian is 99.9% in practice, I don't know of any country that doesn't run heavy government intervention, i.e. monetary policy or fiscal policy to correct market failure. Like Phoenix said, its a good way for global elites/banks to control our fiat currency economy to benefit the elites.

2.It is only as feasible as the elites want it to be, they have total control of all the real economy through the central banks, they can send any country into a depression/boom if they deem it to be, it has nothing to do with real market economics. Why is this true? Because they have total control of 99.9 percent of all fiat central banks, which mean the global economy is connected in a bad way.

The only central banks that they don't control is North Korea, maybe Vietnam and Cuba.

But they are working on those banks as we speak.

Syria is going under there control soon.

Post: #35

Phoenix and HOD, thanks guys. I actually assumed our economy was more based on neoliberal principles, Friedmanite?

And why is government intervention seen as such a bad thing?

sidenote: sorry if my questions sound dumb, i'm just trying to start from the ground up in my understanding of economics.

Post: #36

In a nutshell, government intervention is seen as "bad" by economists on the right because they believe that it causes unintended consequences that are just as bad, if not worse, than the problem the government wants to solve.

For example, welfare's goal is to reduce government dependency and poverty but it actually increases government dependency and poverty since the government is paying people to be poor.

The death tax is justified by the goal of preventing large estates and wealth inequality. It hurts the economy by discouraging saving and encourages wasteful spending.

Minimum wage laws are said to help the working class but if you produce less than the value of the minimum wage, you won't have a job, thus making you worse off. The government may say that if an employer hires you, he has to pay $7.25 but the employer is not obligated to hire you.

The government's tax on luxury goods are thought to take money from the rich and give to the poor. But if the demand for luxury goods are elastic, then the rich won't buy them and the people that end up getting hurt are the sellers of such goods, which is the unintended consequence.

There are numerous other examples of how the government's "help" actually hurts people.

Post: #37

But say you take away govt. intervention, what would be the scenario then? Would things automatically improve?

Post: #38

The current economic model used in most countries and taught at universities is a mixture between neoclassical and Keynesian approach. The application differs from country to country.

Austrian economics is essentially almost complete cut-throat unleashed capitalism with close to zero regulations - that is the idea. The proponents make the claim that everything will be alright via the unseen hand of the benevolent market. In reality you would quickly get a Dickensian kind of economy. Some Libartarians have even argued for slavery and the right of the parents to sell their children - for parts or for labor. This is no joke by the way - https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/201...mentalism/ Rothbard has argued for that.

The complete opposite of Libertarianism/Austrian Economics is Communism where the government controls ALL ASPECTS OF ECONOMIC INPUT AND OUTPUT. This does not work either.

So the world's economic model fluctuate in a limbo between the two. For those who want to discuss Libartarianism with educated men - check out realcurrencies https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/cat...economics/ and various other sites that rip the Austrians a new one: https://recoveringaustrians.wordpress.com/

At the bottom of Anthony's blog you find plenty of other blogs that deal with it.

My personal most logical system based on my own economic education, my own experiences as a manager in major corporate overlords, banks and insurances, as well as my freelance independent professional expertise and my own intensive study program of good alternatives resulted in the following best system:

1. Interest free money creation by a fully transparent nation-owned central bank that issues interest free money for the budget via social credit and demurrage
2. interest free credit for self-used real-estate once in your lifetime as well as a interest free automatic start-up when you are grown up (no further goodies aside from that)
3. Tiny tiny government with a flat tax for all sorts of income (10-20% woud suffice), high tariffs on all goods that can be produced within a country, no VAT - entire tax-base due to elimination of usury for most strategic aspects like state and self-owned real estate would drop to 15% instead the actual account of over 50%
4. Very strict regulations by the state for labor laws, minimum wage, illegal work etc., but then the state leaves you the fuck alone
5. Full open free market encouraged - I would actively and very strictly fight against all monopolies and oligopolies, because in capitalism market concentration is normal, you have to constantly fight against it. Otherwise similar to Libertarians I am for unlimited free market aside from the few strict regulations.
6. Strategic high-capital, monopolistic industries best dealt with a combination of open transparent state enterprises - basic healthcare, public transport, water, electricity, roads - all attempts at privatizing that crap have resulted not in improvements. The only thing you need to do with those is to copy the system from well-functioning countries like Germany, Switzerland, Japan and openly constantly disclose inefficiencies and corruption. Similar to the central banks it is like an open business that should be run like a non-profit.

In essence it is a system that is a combination between a huge number of competitive mid- and small-sized companies, with very few large ones as well as massive access to capital and a high velocity of money-transaction. The lack of usury would result in a constant boom, that would have to be somewhat remedied via central banking measures, but since those would be open, then it is not much of a big secret.

But as with all systems - setting it all up would be close to impossible because globalist interests are all over it.

The future is to be eternal destructive private central banks as well as massive big corporations that control most of the economic output - neo-feudalistic capitalism.

Post: #39

(04-20-2017 09:50 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  And why is government intervention seen as such a bad thing?

Can't answer because that'd be "political" and I'm pledged for the year.

But the book "economics in one lesson" is a good start to this topic.

Post: #40

(04-20-2017 04:24 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Austrian economics is essentially almost complete cut-throat unleashed capitalism with close to zero regulations - that is the idea. The proponents make the claim that everything will be alright via the unseen hand of the benevolent market. In reality you would quickly get a Dickensian kind of economy.

The best arguments against this are places where they've tried to get kids out of the factories in developing countries, only for them to immediately land in much seedier work to make ends meet. The fact is that no parent wants their kid to go work in a factory, but for them the alternative is they work on the farm from dawn to dusk or starve. Regulations cannot conjure up wealth that isn't there, which is ultimately the reason the poor slave away in these factories, until such time as the resulting capital accumulation boosts everyone's standard of living (the peasant of today is richer than the king of 2 centuries ago etc).

Yaron Brook, a very bright guy, has good videos where he addresses this.

(04-20-2017 04:24 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Some Libartarians have even argued for slavery

Yes they have. One guy argued that you should be able to agree to a contract that effectively sells yourself into slavery.

Quote:1. Interest free money creation by a fully transparent nation-owned central bank that issues interest free money for the budget via social credit and demurrage

Are you aware the Worgl experiment only lasted 14 months? Is that a fair indicator of success when boom-bust cycles are beyond a decade long?

Quote:4. Very strict regulations by the state for labor laws, minimum wage, illegal work etc., but then the state leaves you the fuck alone
5. Full open free market encouraged - I would actively and very strictly fight against all monopolies and oligopolies, because in capitalism market concentration is normal, you have to constantly fight against it. Otherwise similar to Libertarians I am for unlimited free market aside from the few strict regulations.
6. Strategic high-capital, monopolistic industries best dealt with a combination of open transparent state enterprises - basic healthcare, public transport, water, electricity, roads - all attempts at privatizing that crap have resulted not in improvements. The only thing you need to do with those is to copy the system from well-functioning countries like Germany, Switzerland, Japan and openly constantly disclose inefficiencies and corruption. Similar to the central banks it is like an open business that should be run like a non-profit.

I think this is Keynesian/Krugman economics in a nutshell. The market must both be free and strictly regulated at the same time

Post: #41

(04-20-2017 04:59 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Are you aware the Worgl experiment only lasted 14 months? Is that a fair indicator of success when boom-bust cycles are beyond a decade long?

Do you know why the Woergl experiment lasted that long and why even Keynes visited the town?

Unemployment went down from 20% to 0% and the town was booming.
By next year 500 towns in Austria, Germany and Switzerland wanted to replicate the Woergl system.

The Austrian government threatened Woergl and every other town attempting to do this with military actions. Actually they began mobilizing some forces already. I am sure that similar measures were taken in Germany as well.

Keep in mind that this was in a deep recession, but private central banking independent currencies are banned - especially when those have demurrage embedded in them and can be used for paying taxes. The globalist sheisters had to cut that thing off fast before a country realized how effective that is.

Post: #42

^ Yep that's all a predictable "easy money" caused boom. Demurrage is like low interest rates on steroids -- it's actually negative interest rates. And like all booms it just means a bust down the road. It is no different to the post tech bubble low interest rates resulting in the housing boom, or the Japanese ZIRP+printing ultimately leading to decades of stagnation, or their monetary policy leading up to the crash that preceded that.

The Scottish free banking era has much more than 14 months evidence that if you just leave business to their own devices, and let them naturally choose bits of metal they dig out of the ground as their unit of account, or whatever else they want to use, it's all pretty stable and effective.

Post: #43

(04-20-2017 09:50 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Phoenix and HOD, thanks guys. I actually assumed our economy was more based on neoliberal principles, Friedmanite?

And why is government intervention seen as such a bad thing?
ou

Like Phoenix said it is consider bad, due to the fact it is polluted by global politics created by global elites, it has nothing to do with free markets and competition, since we do not live in a perfect world.

Therefore, global elites i.e. George Soros in 1997, initiated the Asian Financial Crisis by weakening the Thai Baht, through the global central banking system, it is very apparent the crisis was artificially created via an intervention by the private sector to influence a Thai government intervention in Thailand. Furthermore, led to an extremely poor decision and reaction by the Thai Central bank. Which made the situation worse and led the baht to spiral out of control, via the Thai monetary system failure.

Thus, is a prime and easy example and is quite transparent how powerful the global elites can destroy an economy via the global central banking system. Therefore we have tremendous pressure by geopolitics on economic policy around the world.

In summation, government intervention can be good and bad, it just depends who is running the system, if JFK control the system it would be awesome, but since we do not live in perfect world, instead we have jackass geopolitician like Merkel/Soros/Clinton/Obama cartel, therefore government intervention is considered bad, because of there geopolitical agenda, that are considered to be extremely dangerous to the majority of the population around the world.

Post: #44

(04-20-2017 05:21 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  ^ Yep that's all a predictable "easy money" caused boom. Demurrage is like low interest rates on steroids -- it's actually negative interest rates. And like all booms it just means a bust down the road. It is no different to the post tech bubble low interest rates resulting in the housing boom, or the Japanese ZIRP+printing ultimately leading to decades of stagnation, or their monetary policy leading up to the crash that preceded that.

The Scottish free banking era has much more than 14 months evidence that if you just leave business to their own devices, and let them naturally choose bits of metal they dig out of the ground as their unit of account, or whatever else they want to use, it's all pretty stable and effective.

Sorry - wrong.

The boom bust cycle you get from neoliberal and Keynesian economies are very similar - based on growth of debt until it becomes unbearable for economic participants to pay it back based on the income they have. It does not matter even if the boom was caused by an underlying growth of goods that went out of hand. Essentially it increased debt tremendously and then the money supply collapsed.

The difference to Woergl is TREMENDOUS!!!!!!!

Woergl had no expansion of the debt ratio, because the banks were still in a recession. All that the Woergl city did was issue some added currency that they used to pay for goods and services within the city parameters and those funds could be used by the citizens to pay for taxes or other goods and services on a voluntary basis. But of course it was legal tender instantly. The added bonus was that demurrage - a fine would have to be paid if you kept on for it longer than a month. The genius was that everyone was spending it as fast as possible and it strangely produced an economic boom without an underlying rise in the debt ratio. The amount of money issued was also minimal. Later when studied the city admitted that they issued only a small part of their budget with that currency and later stopped issuing more, since that was enough. This added interest free money with demurrage was enough to speed up the economic cycle essentially debt free.

And the reason why the mayor stopped issuing cash contrary to what an African banana republic would have done - well the reason was that he based his action on the book by Silvio Gsell.

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/201...henomenon/

You should really read up more instead of spouting Austrian economic propaganda.

Quote:AM: the total amount of trade financed by the certificates amounted to the equivalent of 2,5 million Schillings. While only about 5,500 worth of certificates were circulating on average. Meaning that the small demurrage of 12% made the certificates circulate at least a hundred times faster than the Schilling.

That is the real positive multiplier effect vs the fake one of fractional reserve lending.

When the velocity of money increases 10.000%, then the economic output of a region picks up tremendously.

The staff of Woergl even thought that the folk had begun counterfeiting the bills, because the city received more cash back than they had printed out. But of course what the staff missed was that the money was already recycled multiple times.



Velocity of money is something that the FED does not like to publish.

Quote:Quite a catastrophic decline in circulation and good proof that hoarding cash is detrimental. And also that a deflationary crash is closely related to hoarding. This is not an attack on those who save money. In the way the system works, it’s rational behavior. It just shows that the system is not working properly.

Although I don’t have figures about the velocity of money in the thirties, Michael Unterguggenburger most definitely assumed that hoarding was the problem, because he had this printed on his certificates:

“To all whom it may concern! Sluggishly circulating money has provoked an unprecedented trade depression and plunged millions into utter misery. Economically considered, the destruction of the world has started. – It is time, through determined and intelligent action, to endeavour to arrest the downward plunge of the trade machine and thereby to save mankind from fratricidal wars, chaos, and dissolution. Human beings live by exchanging their services. Sluggish circulation has largely stopped this exchange and thrown millions of willing workers out of employment. – We must therefore revive this exchange of services and by its means bring the unemployed back to the ranks of the producers. Such is the object of the labour certificate issued by the market town of Wörgl : it softens sufferings dread; it offers work and bread.”

Yeah - but there were already massive parties like the Greenshirts in Britain who tried that. The globalists fight that more than anything else out there.

Instead the trillionaires offer dead-end solutions like Austrian Economics out there.
Here serfs - take the unseen hand of the market vs the actual superior economic methods.

Why have an increase of the veolocity of money by a factor of 100, when you can have increased debt ratios? Or better yet the best weapon of Austrian economics - no debt ratio, but a decrease of money velocity coupled with deflation, so that your gold coins are worth more, but poverty is even worse.

Alas - Austrian Economics is not only a dead end, it will also never come, because it would collapse any economy within a short time.

There is even an interest-free money movement in Israel, that has been discussed in the Knesset. But of course it will never be realized so long as the globalists are in power everywhere.

Post: #45

(04-21-2017 03:05 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  You should really read up more instead of spouting Austrian economic propaganda.

Well I'd never accuse you of being concerned with objective facts, Zel. "I've decided this and now here's a new conspiracy of secret powerful forces that has stopped it becoming commonplace" seems more your epistemology. You seem to have an emotionally sensitive spot to this particular idea for some reason. The reader can make up his mind, and I'll leave it at that.

(04-21-2017 02:41 AM)HOD Wrote:  In summation, government intervention can be good and bad, it just depends who is running the system

Yep so if it fails under Stalin, the problem was Trotsky wasn't in power. Then if it fails under Trotsky, actually it failed because Bukharin wasn't in power. Never let it be said that systems are objectively good or bad, and government intervention is for the benefit of the governors rather than the intervene-ees

Post: #46

Well - while I don't even care to this discuss this, calling me a CIA-term conspiracy theorist and then running away is not nice.

Bad Phoenix!

I invite you to check out the site and articles on it.

Not that this matters - world economy under globalists will never become Austrian-style and neither will they get my proposed system.

Seems like you should rather visit the site Recovering Austrians - a site where former recovering Austrian cultists can come together and talk about their ideas and terrible experiences with this cult.

Post: #47

(04-21-2017 07:29 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Well - while I don't even care to this discuss this, calling me a CIA-term conspiracy theorist and then running away is not nice.

Bad Phoenix!

I invite you to check out the site and articles on it.

Not that this matters - world economy under globalists will never become Austrian-style and neither will they get my proposed system.

Seems like you should rather visit the site Recovering Austrians - a site where former recovering Austrian cultists can come together and talk about their ideas and terrible experiences with this cult.

Great website! I've used it many times when debating friends who are very interested in that fallacious economic school of thought. The biggest lie Austrians say is that commodity standards or a free market money system will bring prosperity. We had some form of these in the past and purchasing power was both lower and the instability was extremely high.

Post: #48

(04-21-2017 05:17 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 03:05 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  You should really read up more instead of spouting Austrian economic propaganda.

Well I'd never accuse you of being concerned with objective facts, Zel. "I've decided this and now here's a new conspiracy of secret powerful forces that has stopped it becoming commonplace" seems more your epistemology. You seem to have an emotionally sensitive spot to this particular idea for some reason. The reader can make up his mind, and I'll leave it at that.

(04-21-2017 02:41 AM)HOD Wrote:  In summation, government intervention can be good and bad, it just depends who is running the system

Yep so if it fails under Stalin, the problem was Trotsky wasn't in power. Then if it fails under Trotsky, actually it failed because Bukharin wasn't in power. Never let it be said that systems are objectively good or bad, and government intervention is for the benefit of the governors rather than the intervene-ees

Disagree, FDR did a great job with government intervention, i.e. building some of the greatest infrastructure in the world, such as the American highway and free way system. In addition, the glass-stegall act to prevent globalist banks from fucking the American people over.

Furthermore, JFK, would of used government intervention to jack up the globalist banks and promote better trade relationship with both China and Russia.

Post: #49

(04-21-2017 07:29 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  world economy under globalists will never become Austrian-style and neither will they get my proposed system.

Here is a statement we can all agree on.

Post: #50

(04-21-2017 12:01 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 07:29 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  world economy under globalists will never become Austrian-style and neither will they get my proposed system.

Here is a statement we can all agree on.

Also I have no beef with non-billionaire non-globalist Libertarians.

In a free system we come together, drink some scotch, bang some girls, then make out a simple experiment:

Take certain regions giving each our proposed system and test it out in full - one region of the UK gets borders, tariffs and my interest free money with demurrage and another region of the UK gets an Austrian economics system under the same conditions.

Within a very short time we would see one or the other doing much better under all criteria.

Then we both meet again, drink some scotch, bang some girls and shake hands and agree that the winning system is now to be implemented in advancing stages across the board.

Discussion ended, more scotch and more girls ordered for consumption.