Here is a edifying 2011 video, although I have my reservations. It is a good survey of the problems we face. It is an oddity: progressives recommending the gold standard! Two million views and 19 world wide film awards.
I'd say all of these people are of good will, but here is the problem, each is a progressive. Several are ex-IMF, certainly a facilitator of world economic degradation. Although John Perkins, the econ hit man is interviewed, there are no confessions of who did what. I would settle for their prescriptions, which are no good, but vastly better than where we are now. But here is the problem, not a single one of these people, renowned all, has not already sold out, in the pursuit of becoming renown. Nor is there a single self-employed interviewed. Is there not a single progressive on earth who has not sold out for a sinecure? Would it not be foolish to expect the leopard to change sports?
They present the false dichotomy of classical and neo classical economics… there is more under the sun than is dreamt of in their philosophy. They all claim to be capitalists, but I suspect just a progressive version of that.
About 1/2 way through, in fact, they identify the outlook as progressive, and by then had already hinted at maluthisian and darwinian outlooks.
Does this not sound like "hire me, I know the problems, and want more sinecure mouthing platitudes"? We all love a system that works for us, even if only in the role of jester.
They call for worker ownership of mean of production, good, if you have a model. Better to have co-ops, which are customer owned? Who wants employees in charge of anything?
The speak of "regulation fantasies… deregulation" Wait, nothing was deregulated, regulations were merely changed. before the change, the regulations had one set of winners and losers, after the change in regulations, another set of winner and losers were picked. Those complaining about deregulation are simply the new losers. The problem is regulations, not "which set."
The topic of consumption tax over income tax... But wait, why have any tax? And income redistribution? O dear, who decides? More winners and losers…
Instead, how abut de-legalize usury? And watch income redistribute, with land, along meritocratic lines.
They make the claim that the medium of change is freedom of the internet. Are they kidding? It is 98% intel gig. If you think the net will contribute to freedom, you don't know your spooks.
No one will ever try the unknown. They regret income inequality, hint at property redistribution, but those path lead to blood. Better to de-legitimize (not illegalize) usury, and watch the land be pitch perfect redistributed.
But know, rather be on board on the side of the next Mao, eat drink and be merry, while criticizing the hand that fed them.
And here again, the analysis labors under the mis-definition of money. They cannot get to better from there.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
I'd say all of these people are of good will, but here is the problem, each is a progressive. Several are ex-IMF, certainly a facilitator of world economic degradation. Although John Perkins, the econ hit man is interviewed, there are no confessions of who did what. I would settle for their prescriptions, which are no good, but vastly better than where we are now. But here is the problem, not a single one of these people, renowned all, has not already sold out, in the pursuit of becoming renown. Nor is there a single self-employed interviewed. Is there not a single progressive on earth who has not sold out for a sinecure? Would it not be foolish to expect the leopard to change sports?
They present the false dichotomy of classical and neo classical economics… there is more under the sun than is dreamt of in their philosophy. They all claim to be capitalists, but I suspect just a progressive version of that.
About 1/2 way through, in fact, they identify the outlook as progressive, and by then had already hinted at maluthisian and darwinian outlooks.
Does this not sound like "hire me, I know the problems, and want more sinecure mouthing platitudes"? We all love a system that works for us, even if only in the role of jester.
They call for worker ownership of mean of production, good, if you have a model. Better to have co-ops, which are customer owned? Who wants employees in charge of anything?
The speak of "regulation fantasies… deregulation" Wait, nothing was deregulated, regulations were merely changed. before the change, the regulations had one set of winners and losers, after the change in regulations, another set of winner and losers were picked. Those complaining about deregulation are simply the new losers. The problem is regulations, not "which set."
The topic of consumption tax over income tax... But wait, why have any tax? And income redistribution? O dear, who decides? More winners and losers…
Instead, how abut de-legalize usury? And watch income redistribute, with land, along meritocratic lines.
They make the claim that the medium of change is freedom of the internet. Are they kidding? It is 98% intel gig. If you think the net will contribute to freedom, you don't know your spooks.
No one will ever try the unknown. They regret income inequality, hint at property redistribution, but those path lead to blood. Better to de-legitimize (not illegalize) usury, and watch the land be pitch perfect redistributed.
But know, rather be on board on the side of the next Mao, eat drink and be merry, while criticizing the hand that fed them.
And here again, the analysis labors under the mis-definition of money. They cannot get to better from there.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment