http://www.dailymotion.com/related/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov/video/x6kip3_manipulation-de-lopinion-yuri-bezme_news?from=rss
Keep in mind that this is from 1985. Truly astonishing.
29 September 2008
Frank Shostak on the Bailout
Here is a wonderfully succinct analysis from a professional economist, Frank Shostak.
Update: Bill was voted down in the House. Woot. For now...
Update: Bill was voted down in the House. Woot. For now...
25 September 2008
This hasn't been/is not the Free Market - or - Socialists (should) rejoice!
Over the past couple weeks, we've heard many buzzwords, half-truths, and outright lies fed to us by the Media; from Henry Paulson's lie that the financial sector needs a $700 billion bailout, to that asshole Paul Krugman going on Bill Maher's show and saying something to the effect of "There are no libertarians in a financial meltdown" to (in a link I borrowed from a mises.org blog) the Socialist Worker saying that this is a huge failure, and the last one, made by free market capitalism.
Lies, lies, and, yes, more lies.
Krugman, if you'd get down off your liberal soap box at the New York Times (The Times!!! The most blatantly liberal nationally-distributed newspaper), and possibly check out any of the dozens (hundreds?) of websites out there that are espousing free market economics now more than ever, (read: especially in times of supposed financial crisis.) then you might change your mind. Although, I highly doubt it.
Look, socialists, I don't know why you all aren't dancing and singing in the streets while sipping your lattes and quoting Marx. This is a great time for you guys.
Mises once said "all middle-of-the-road policies lead to socialism," and the current financial situation is a beautifully morbid example of that. The financial and housing industries weren't always socialist, or even broadly Keynesian (read: middle-of-the-road policies that lead to socialism), but were once mostly free-market. First, the housing industry went, and now, the financial industries join the housing on that middle-road policy.
I went back and found the A Political guide for the Worker's, written in 1920 by Eugene Debs. In it, one can find the Socialist Party's Platform, and under "1. Social" it reads:
3. All banks should be acquired by the government, and incorporated in a unified public banking system.
4. The business of insurance should be taken over by the government, and should be extended to include insurance against accident, sickness, invalidity, old age and unemployment, without contribution on the part of the worker.
(Without contribution on the part of the worker?? Lol. Obviously, Eugene didn't quite understand that pesky notion of "there ain't no such this as a free lunch". I.e. He was economically retarded.)
2. Industrial.
-1. Congress should enact effective laws to abolish child labor, to fix minimum wages, based on an ascertained cost of a decent standard of life, to protect migratory and unemployed workers from oppression, to abolish detective and strike-breaking agencies and to establish a shorter work-day in keeping with increased industrial productivity"
(Ok, some of the things here deal with productivity of the worker and his general well-being, but the other things, like minimum wages, "protect workers from oppression", whatever the hell that means, and prohibit strike-breaking? Ha. You know how far those laws have been taken? If a union rep. shows up at my factory and tries to unionize and I were to tell my workers that if they wanted to be paid more then I would have to cut back on their hours and whatnot, I would be arrested for "harassment". Unions suck.)
But, one has to remember, Socialism was never designed as an end in-of-itself, it was only supposed to be the stepping stone, the transition period, between Capitalism and Communism.
Socialism has failed.
Socialism has failed.
Socialism has failed.
Socialism has failed.
Socialism has failed.
Socialism has failed.
Socialism has failed.
Should I say it again, just so it registers with you retarded socialists out there?
I don't think I need to. It won't make a bit of difference, because you all are so unwilling to change your opinions. Can't face up to the reality that you're opinions are wrong, eh? You know what that's called? Immaturity. Childish.
Onto my next point: I will state my hypothesis about socialists.
One of the following points sums up Socialists:
a) Socialists are too stupid to see that in a free-market society, they would be completely free to practice socialism in communes or where ever, anywhere they want, whenever they want, and to any degree they want.
b) Socialists realize this, but would rather make everybody else live their way, due to an intense hatred of other peoples' ways of living, which they hide under the pretense of "freeing the worker from the oppression and control of evil capitalist pigs" or "(insert catchy but false socialist phrase)"
Socialists could live peacefully with others in a free society, but instead they seek to enslave others by "freeing" them, thanks to Engel and Marx's clever redefining of "freedom".
Ugh, I'm too disgusted to go on.
Lies, lies, and, yes, more lies.
Krugman, if you'd get down off your liberal soap box at the New York Times (The Times!!! The most blatantly liberal nationally-distributed newspaper), and possibly check out any of the dozens (hundreds?) of websites out there that are espousing free market economics now more than ever, (read: especially in times of supposed financial crisis.) then you might change your mind. Although, I highly doubt it.
Look, socialists, I don't know why you all aren't dancing and singing in the streets while sipping your lattes and quoting Marx. This is a great time for you guys.
Mises once said "all middle-of-the-road policies lead to socialism," and the current financial situation is a beautifully morbid example of that. The financial and housing industries weren't always socialist, or even broadly Keynesian (read: middle-of-the-road policies that lead to socialism), but were once mostly free-market. First, the housing industry went, and now, the financial industries join the housing on that middle-road policy.
I went back and found the A Political guide for the Worker's, written in 1920 by Eugene Debs. In it, one can find the Socialist Party's Platform, and under "1. Social" it reads:
3. All banks should be acquired by the government, and incorporated in a unified public banking system.
4. The business of insurance should be taken over by the government, and should be extended to include insurance against accident, sickness, invalidity, old age and unemployment, without contribution on the part of the worker.
(Without contribution on the part of the worker?? Lol. Obviously, Eugene didn't quite understand that pesky notion of "there ain't no such this as a free lunch". I.e. He was economically retarded.)
2. Industrial.
-1. Congress should enact effective laws to abolish child labor, to fix minimum wages, based on an ascertained cost of a decent standard of life, to protect migratory and unemployed workers from oppression, to abolish detective and strike-breaking agencies and to establish a shorter work-day in keeping with increased industrial productivity"
(Ok, some of the things here deal with productivity of the worker and his general well-being, but the other things, like minimum wages, "protect workers from oppression", whatever the hell that means, and prohibit strike-breaking? Ha. You know how far those laws have been taken? If a union rep. shows up at my factory and tries to unionize and I were to tell my workers that if they wanted to be paid more then I would have to cut back on their hours and whatnot, I would be arrested for "harassment". Unions suck.)
But, one has to remember, Socialism was never designed as an end in-of-itself, it was only supposed to be the stepping stone, the transition period, between Capitalism and Communism.
Socialism has failed.
Socialism has failed.
Socialism has failed.
Socialism has failed.
Socialism has failed.
Socialism has failed.
Socialism has failed.
Should I say it again, just so it registers with you retarded socialists out there?
I don't think I need to. It won't make a bit of difference, because you all are so unwilling to change your opinions. Can't face up to the reality that you're opinions are wrong, eh? You know what that's called? Immaturity. Childish.
Onto my next point: I will state my hypothesis about socialists.
One of the following points sums up Socialists:
a) Socialists are too stupid to see that in a free-market society, they would be completely free to practice socialism in communes or where ever, anywhere they want, whenever they want, and to any degree they want.
b) Socialists realize this, but would rather make everybody else live their way, due to an intense hatred of other peoples' ways of living, which they hide under the pretense of "freeing the worker from the oppression and control of evil capitalist pigs" or "(insert catchy but false socialist phrase)"
Socialists could live peacefully with others in a free society, but instead they seek to enslave others by "freeing" them, thanks to Engel and Marx's clever redefining of "freedom".
Ugh, I'm too disgusted to go on.
18 September 2008
Vin Suprynowicz
Here is a great post on Why Obama (and McCain for that matter) is a damned moron when it comes to, well, anything. But, in this case, the economy, and taxes.
http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=107#more-107
http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=107#more-107
Back
I'm back, haven't posted in a while. Oh well, not like anyone reads this thing anyway.
So, in the news...
William Grigg's excellent article on the recent bailouts:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/09/dispossession-by-decree.html
Quite nicely sums it up. I read somewhere else, perhaps a Cato.org article, that describes these bailouts as the perfect example of "Crony Capitalism". Ah, found it here:
http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9635
So, in the news...
William Grigg's excellent article on the recent bailouts:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/09/dispossession-by-decree.html
Quite nicely sums it up. I read somewhere else, perhaps a Cato.org article, that describes these bailouts as the perfect example of "Crony Capitalism". Ah, found it here:
http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9635
28 April 2008
Economics in One Lesson
If you haven't read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, then you shouldn't be running for any government office.
This book begins by stating "Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other field of study known to man." And he explains, quite thoroughly, all the fallacies one encounters in dealing with government, politics, and economics.
One chapter really stands out in the timelessness of it's advice (the book was written in 1946), and that is the chapter called "Credit Diverts Production". Here is an excerpt of Section 2:
"The proposal for government loans to private individuals or projects, in brief, sees B and forgets A. It sees the people into whose hands the capital is put; it forgets those who would otherwise have had it. It sees the project to which capital is granted: it forgets the projects from which capital is thereby withheld. It sees the immediate benefit to one group; it overlooks the losses to other groups, and the net less to the community as a whole.
The case against government-guaranteed loans and mortgages to private businesses and persons is almost as strong as, though less obvious than, the case against direct government loans and mortgages. The advocates of government-guaranteed mortgages also forget that what is being lent is ultimately real capital, which is limited in supply, and that they are helping identified B at the expense of some unidentified A. Government-guaranteed home mortgages, especially when a negligible down payment or no down payment whatever is required, inevitably mean more bad loans that otherwise. They force the general taxpayer to subsidize the bad risks and to defray the losses. They encourage people to "buy" houses that they cannot really afford. They tend eventually to bring about an oversupply of houses as compared with other things. They temporarily overstimulate building, raise the cost of building for everybody (including the buyers of the homes with the guaranteed mortgages), and may mislead the building industry into an eventually costly overexpansion. In brief, in the long run they do not increase national production buy encourage malinvestment." (added bold-emphasis is mine).
Hm, that sound at all familiar?
If I were a teacher, no matter what I taught, I'd probably make my students read this book.
This book begins by stating "Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other field of study known to man." And he explains, quite thoroughly, all the fallacies one encounters in dealing with government, politics, and economics.
One chapter really stands out in the timelessness of it's advice (the book was written in 1946), and that is the chapter called "Credit Diverts Production". Here is an excerpt of Section 2:
"The proposal for government loans to private individuals or projects, in brief, sees B and forgets A. It sees the people into whose hands the capital is put; it forgets those who would otherwise have had it. It sees the project to which capital is granted: it forgets the projects from which capital is thereby withheld. It sees the immediate benefit to one group; it overlooks the losses to other groups, and the net less to the community as a whole.
The case against government-guaranteed loans and mortgages to private businesses and persons is almost as strong as, though less obvious than, the case against direct government loans and mortgages. The advocates of government-guaranteed mortgages also forget that what is being lent is ultimately real capital, which is limited in supply, and that they are helping identified B at the expense of some unidentified A. Government-guaranteed home mortgages, especially when a negligible down payment or no down payment whatever is required, inevitably mean more bad loans that otherwise. They force the general taxpayer to subsidize the bad risks and to defray the losses. They encourage people to "buy" houses that they cannot really afford. They tend eventually to bring about an oversupply of houses as compared with other things. They temporarily overstimulate building, raise the cost of building for everybody (including the buyers of the homes with the guaranteed mortgages), and may mislead the building industry into an eventually costly overexpansion. In brief, in the long run they do not increase national production buy encourage malinvestment." (added bold-emphasis is mine).
Hm, that sound at all familiar?
If I were a teacher, no matter what I taught, I'd probably make my students read this book.
21 April 2008
John Oliver's Stand-Up
I was watching John Oliver's stand-up on Comedy Central last night, and I almost had an aneurysm every time he spoke, because every time he spoke, it was about how stupid western society is, how everyone should feel absolutely guilty about the actions of ancestors, how stupid capitalism (free-trade) is, etc.
You know, the usual drivel from modern socialists and Brits.
It actually made my heart rate go up.
Why don't people get it?
You know, the usual drivel from modern socialists and Brits.
It actually made my heart rate go up.
Why don't people get it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)