Four Truths About USA

The following occasioned this rant, in particular the comments section:

This is not new. In 2014, five black girls, aged 17, 15, 15, 15 and 14, committed three separate attacks on random white people at TempleUniversity. Struck across the face with a brick, a 19-year-old white student suffered a fractured jaw and nearly had her teeth knocked out. Her 15-year-old assailant, Zaria Estes, was given a 2 ½-6 year sentence.

What dad lets a son attend an inner city college unarmed?  What dad lets a daughter date a boy who is unable to defend her?

1. African Americans are the designated despised underclass, and are subject to scientific racist policies designed to exterminate (Darwin's words) them.  They are hammered in food, medicine, education, culture (rap), housing, and "social services" that would disgrace a gulag. The ones thriving are tolerated as stalking horses to get the ones being exterminated. The last Jews the Nazis got around to were the elite. Think Colin Powell, Barack Obama, etc. Until the reality is accepted, there is no solution.

2. The statistics regarding African Americans are all skewed to special pleading, no matter the conclusion.  Don't believe any of it.  There is nothing said today about African Americans that was not said about the Irish in the UK 100 years ago.

3. Victims lash out, and harm the innocent as well as the perpetrators.

4. It is allowed to kill someone, or a group, who is coming at you with intent to harm.

Work against the institutional racism, but be ready to kill any victim who approaches you with intent to do harm.

The end of institutional racism is separatism, an African American Autonomous Region within the borders of USA, subject to American Indian permission.  (Detroit would be peaceful and prosperous, like the Bahamas, if the African Americans there were allowed to achieve that.  See Tulsa Riots.)

Just as with the institution of the country calling itself Israel has made it safe for Jews to live just about anywhere (and the vast majority of Jews do live outside Israel), so an African American Autonomous Region would allow African Americans to live safely in USA.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

All Hail IPR-free India!

This is not accidental, one of the agenda items of the powers that be is eugenics, getting rid of those Malthus and Darwin deemed excess.

Access to low-cost quality medicines plays a critical role in public health systems. In the last decade, the public health challenges facing developing countries have expanded beyond infectious diseases to non-communicable diseases (“NCDs”) in large part due to changing lifestyles and environmental risks. The World Health Organisation estimates that 80 per cent of all deaths from NCDs occur in low- and middle-income countries like India.

Never mind correlation is no cause, and anyway there is no correlation between population concentration and poverty, using BigPharma to control population is the point, as when the USA Centers for Disease Control ran the Tuskegee Experiments to not treat Americans of African ancestry for syphilis, to see what would happen.  As if 5000 years of experience needed to be checked.  How come they never included white folk upon which to experiment?  Well, not to worry, no one went to prison for the crime, and now ongoing secret criminal experiments continue and include white people as victims too.

Generic drugs cost a fraction of the monopoly prices charged in countries like the United States, and the presence of multiple generic competitors in India has reduced the price of cancer and HIV treatment by as much as 90 to 1,000 per cent. For instance, first-line HIV treatment that costs over Rs.16 lakh annually to treat just one patient in the U.S. costs the Indian AIDS programme approximately Rs.7,000.

Right.  And India needs to get busy making their own real drugs that work for patients worldwide.  In the meantime, the thugs in government who work for BigPharm are trying to blackmail India into participating in the continuation of the Tuskegee Experiments.

India must clearly reject the intellectual property laws which the United States is trying to force on us. These have led to an unprecedented health crisis in the U.S. itself, with spiralling prices of medicines under lengthy and multiple IP monopolies, with American insurance companies struggling to manage the cost of reimbursing expensive new medicines, all of which threaten people’s access to treatment. Current U.S. intellectual property laws have done nothing but enable pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for medicines, such as over $1,00,000 annually for new cancer medicines and $1,000 a pill for new hepatitis C treatments. This has made health care simply out of reach for the vast majority of Americans and the issue of affordable health care has dominated the primaries in the ongoing American presidential elections. This failed model, which has allowed companies to profit from human misery and is even rejected in its own country, is not worthy of our consideration.

Go India!

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

What I Read This Summer

Finally got through a remarkable book on tolerance by A J Conyers.  It traces the history of the idea of tolerance, and its move from a definition grounded in Christianity to a state definition.  The shift is a fascinating read, and although I've never heard of Conyers, he is a heavyweight theologian.  The side exegesis on the Trinity and its role in modelling community is new.  The Long Truce: How Toleration Made the World Safe for Power and Profit , by A J Conyers.




 I tried to blog as I read Tombstone, The Great Chinese Famine by Yang Ji Sheng, but the point came out relentlessly.  The human toll when too much power is concentrated in too few hands is staggering.  Thirty Six Million people starved to death, that is got to death, not to mention those who suffered up to death but survived.  Communists keep pretty good records at one level if not another, so the role of the players is clear.  The point that relentlessly came out to me was point by point, we have latent every weakness China exhibited as it experienced this colossal state failure.  That is to say, it can happen here.
Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958-1962




Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi gave a few lectures on Judaism and Zakhor, the biblical imperative to remember.  Instructive.  The Jews wrote The History, and then stopped writing history, and after living under Moslem rules, picked up the sciences, including history writing, about 500 years ago. Is history linear or circular?  What if it is faith/infidelity?  A  mind-altering way of looking at life.  Zakhor, Jewish History and Jewish Memory, Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi.
Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (The Samuel and Althea Stroum Lectures in Jewish Studies)



 Another great group for record keeping was renaissance Florence.  Orson Wells notes that the 400 years of the Italian renaissance were times of famine, plague, civil war, economic trials and what not, and at the same time it produced Dante, Michaelangelo, Bellini, Titian, DaVinci, Fibonacci only to name a few. The same 400 years the Swiss had peace and security and they produced the cuckoo clock.  May we live in interesting times...  Gene Brucker sifts through court records from Renaissance Florence and shows us what life was like then and there from the iaring of dirty laundry, The Society of Renaissance Florence.
The Society of Renaissance Florence: A Documentary Study (Harper Torchbooks, Tb 1607)

Uber-translator of Chinese lit, maven David Hinton hikes the Mountain behind his house and ruminates on the Chinese language.  I don't speak Chinese, I barely speak English, but his fluency in Chinese art and culture will improve any China Hand.  He takes 2 dozen Chinese characters back to the roots and forward and helps explicate the Chinese character.  (He adds some Darwinism in there that is oddly jarring, tossing the academy a bone?)  He uses the Wade-Giles system instead of pinyin, which is fairly old school, and the CE and BCE (Christian Era and Before Christian Era) instead of BC and AD.  Go figure.  But I jumped from my chair when he relates the image for friends come from an image for cowrie shells, which some archeologists mistake for money but are clearly tallies.  Tallies are of who owes whom what, that is to say credit, and that the image for friends would be the means for keeping tally would be telling etymology.  Hunger Mountain, David Hinton.Hunger Mountain: A Field Guide to Mind and Landscape



 I wish I could say who turned me on to "Usury, The Destroyer of Nations" by S C Mooney, but at any rate, Mooney carefully and systematically takes on the pro-usury arguments of the Calvinists.  (Calvin is essentially the godfather of modern usury practice, although just as you cannot blame Hitler on Darwin, you can't blame the FED on Calvin.)  Mooney has read the classics and Rushdoony and North, and they get direct refutation.  Mooney is qualified to proceed from theological grounds, and his argument is based on the premise that usury is wrong because God forbid it.  My premise is more Catholic, it is wrong because it does harm, but so subtly that God was obliged to expressly forbid it, and expressly repeated by Jesus.  Of course we people learn the rules and then devote the rest of our lives searching for personal exemptions.  Mooney takes a twist that I cannot follow but it is astonishing.  one argument is usury is just rent of money, just like rent of say a horse.  Well, this can be refuted quite easily, but Mooney grants it as accurate, then goes on the say the bible forbids rentals as well as usury.  The bad guys try to make usury acceptable by analogizing it to rent, to which the repsonse is to deny the parity, easy enough.  But Mooney accepts their assertion of parity, and then says "rentals are forbidden too!  Mooney's argument I think fails on this point, but it is a remarkable bit of work to read.  This you can get free online....

I've read a lot of minor papers too, but this prolegomenous 30 pages on tontines by Kent McKeever is useful regarding non-predatory finance and insurance.  Reading the history of tontines it is at least one example of where a wicked government program was adapted by the populace and turned into a good things.  Usually policy is based on wicked public practice that is adopted by the state and made legal and far worse (ponzi scheme to social security.)  As our system comes down, we'll need to rediscover robust means of economic development.  Free, caution, opens as a .pdf.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

We Buy El Salvador's Lunch

Comes the news on USA foreign aid:

El Salvador is a recent example of corporate domination in U.S. foreign aid. The United States will withhold the Millennium Challenge Compact aid deal, approximately $277 million in aid, unless El Salvador purchases genetically-modified seeds from biotech giant, Monsanto.

Where do we get $277 million dollars to "aid" El Salvador?  Well, as long as we can lend credit, for which there is no rational limit, credit-backed dollars are unlimited.  $277 million might seem like a lot to you or me, and even El Salvador, and certainly some El Salvadorans who were educated in USA, but to Uncle Sam who admits to 16 Trillion in debt, it is peanuts.

El Salvador is a small country, but as more and more small countries are paid by USA taxpayers to buy Monsanto products, it starts to add up for Monsanto.  Please note that without USA taxpayers buying the Monsanto products for El Salvador, El Salvadorans would not buy Monsanto products.  In big biz/big govt USA, this means taxpayers must pay El Salvadorans to buy Monsanto products.  Well, not pay for, but add it to our tab, since we are putting all this on credit.

As small countries take the money and then buy Monsanto, the food control shifts from the growers to the Harvard educated city bureaucracy, and the result is the chaos of such countries as Somalia.  We have destabilized many a South American and African country with this "aid."  We did so to the USA inner cities.

How did we get here?

The watershed event was the USA leaving the the last vestiges of the gold standard in 1971, and with that broke free of any rational limit to borrowing.  With limitless borrowing, comes limitless credit, in turn which can be lent.  What is outlawed in the three great monotheistic religions, is now calculated in the trillions.

But to what end?  It is always the same thing: libido dominandi.   Lust for power drives all sorts of people and Rome was not the first to conquer territories for food, and then use food for control.  It was ever thus.

USA was supposed to be exceptional in this regard, but we have proven to be unexceptional.  With the limits off, USA got busy using, as Earl Butz noted, food as a weapon.

Time magazine (November 11, 1974), concluding its special report on the world food crisis, explains its support of triage:
In the West, there is increasing talk of triage. . . .If the U.S. decides that the grant would simply go down the drain as a mere palliative because the recipient country was doing little to improve its food distribution or start a population control program, no help would be sent. This may be a brutal policy, but it is perhaps the only kind that can have any long-range impact. A triage approach could also demand political concessions. . . . Washington may feel no obligation to help countries that consistently and strongly oppose it. As Earl Butz told TIME: "Food is a weapon. It is now one of the principal tools in our negotiating kit."

The press was no less government-controlled back in the 1970s than it is now.  Continuing the blend of theories of Malthus and Darwin, leading magazines proclaimed there are too many people and someone had to go.

Only surplus food will find its way to those nations unable to compete in the market. But not even this paltry sum has been directed to the areas most in need. The Sahelian countries of Africa, where 100,000 persons were felled by famine last year, received relatively little of this surplus food. The decision as to where the food is shipped is based on cold war politics. Last year nearly half of our food aid went to South Vietnam and Cambodia. Our "defense perimeter" certainly did not include Chile under Salvador Allende. Three days before the military coup d’état, the U.S. turned down a request to sell wheat to Chile for cash. Yet one month after the junta’s putsch, with Allende dead, the U.S. granted the new regime eight times the total credit ever offered to Allende to purchase wheat. Food for Peace has been handled as an adjunct of our military assistance programs.

The system now depends on a regime in which there is no rational limit to what can be "borrowed" against "ourselves" (meaning our kids) with the only caution beyond forbidding usury is the vague "unto the third and fourth generation."  Bill to the USA taxpayers El Salvador purchase of GMO grain?  Why not? There is no rational limit, until something goes wrong and it comes a crashing down.

What are the chances the people of El Salvador escape this deal?  What are the chances we escape this deal?   Near zero?  That is capitalism, that is democracy.

On the one hand, there is absolutely no need for these programs.  Yes, people are starving in some places, but not for a shortage of food.  People starve pursuant to political decisions.

The small business of food trade worldwide is necessary and sufficient to literally deliver the goods.  If capitalism and democracy could have delivered by now, it would have.  What proper nutrition people in fact get is the result of free markets.  Like the socialists and communists, capitalists are free riders on the success of free markets.

The most revolutionary act you can perform is to start a business.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Bilderberg Agenda

So I did find the source of these agenda items (among a dozen or so), from the Bilderberg press release:

The key topics for discussion this year include:

• Is the economic recovery sustainable?

• Who will pay for the demographics?

But no elaboration.  Now the first one is a case of "here we go again!"

Like the BoE Gov Carney talking about the good done by QE, "is the economic recovery sustainable" is so obtuse!  What economic recovery?  Do none of these people ever step outdoors?  Do they actually believe their own economic reports?  This makes me nervous, because people who believe their own PR end up in disasters, like a Hitler believing he was winning.  Maybe the agenda is just code for public consumption, but I do truly hope that question is not addressed as posed.

The second one makes no sense, as it is.  Who will pay what for demographic what?  Demographic reports?  Censuses?  Is the idea USA will pay for Ukrainian Census?  What is that about.

Now if you understand that the powers that be, and power itself, is grounded in the Malthus/Darwin premise that there are too many people, the lower humans will die out, so extermination is just helping evolution along, then this is an odious agenda item.  It means what means will which countries use to jettison the perceived "unclaimed baggage" in each country.  it would be good to have this accurately expanded upon.

I've listened to sane, powerful policy makers and enforcers make this same point, in their own words.

Libido dominandi.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

All You Need is Credit

We have always had usury with us, more or less.  Our rules reveal our weaknesses, and every major religion condemns usury harshly because we are so prone to it.

Today what we call "interest" is usury, but by etymological tricks there is enough fog to give it a pass, in spite of its condemnation still being on the books, so to speak.

The rule is simple enough: make no gain on any loan.   All loans, the loan itself, are charitable events.  Even as charity, they are to be repaid.    If they are not repaid, then the idea is the best thing to do is let your charity run deeper, and forgive the loan.

If it is your desire to make money with your money, then the proper means is to invest in a business, at risk with everyone else.  And in fact today, far more money is tied up in equities as investments than loans.  So skin-in-the-game investments is no controversy, but condemning making money on loans sure is.

 The scholastics were given to philosophizing, and a theoretical problem of taking a loss while doing charity was addressed.  Theoretically.  Say someone needs $10,000 today to keep the wolf away from the door, today, Friday.  You were going to sell a flock of sheep on contract for $12,000 on Monday.  The best price you can get today for the same sheep is $10,000.  So to sell today, you'd in effect lose $2000 doing your charity of a loan.  As part of the deal, is is legit to ask to be repaid $12,000 on the $10,000, since you in effect lost $2000 being charitable?  The answer was yes, theoretically, and in the Latin discussions of this theoretical problem, the loss was called interesse. The theory began to address all sorts of scenarios such as "what if I was supposed to pay a bill and the repayment was late, and I suffered some loss?"  The word interesse covered this loss too.  By sheer multiplication of theoretical scenarios of possibilities where a loss can be experienced, covered by interesse, the idea of interesse as a loss to be covered as legitimate spread about the West.

So, when doubtful scenarios in which people made money on money, illicit gain, the propounders called it interesse as well.  And where the word once meant loss on a loan, it now means gain on a loan.

As states began to take temporal power from churches, states began to accept the idea of making money on money, so usury spread.  States also got involved in banking, starting with the Bank of England 300 years ago, and over time learned to lend money at interest, lend money at fractional reserve, lend fiat currency at fractional reserve, which has no rational limit.

To be able to create so much credit makes it cheap and plentiful, so customers need be found to sop it up.  The idea of "risk" in business was introduced, to help foster demand.  Whereas before entrepreneurs would never take a risk, today all schools, media, law assumes that is the essence of entrepreneurialism  (except for Peter Drucker, whom I follow: entrepreneurs do not take risks.)

Now, those who engage in usury on steroids (lending fiat fractional-reserve currency at usury) can aggregate enough resources unto themselves to literally call the shots.  For example, look at a map of countries the UK has invaded since they formed the Bank of England:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html

Some people call this success.  I suppose it depends on which side of the rifle you happen to be.  Of course, no one needs to be on any side of the rifle, it is also possible to trade freely and peacefully and justly without killing people in the process.

We can have golden eras and renaissances without usury being the heart of the economic system, or any part of it at all.  It does not make sense to outlaw usury, people like many vices, people will engage in it.  At best just recognize all loans are charity, and interest is un-enforceable, like gambling debts or contracts with children.  Usury would wither away without the violence of the state to enforce it.  And just how come do we, fifth parties, agree to pay taxes to fourth parties to maintain third parties to enforce by violence agreements between second and first parties (usurers and their victims)?  Let them pay for it themselves.

Usury is important to states.  The CIA is steeped in its promotion, and although Muhammad Yunus won a Nobel Peace Prize for discovering microfinance as a policy tool for Bengla Desh poor,  oddly, Pres Obama's mother was introducing it in Indonesia before or the same time as Yunus.  Well, Darwin and Wallace thought up evolution at the same time, and Newton and Leinniz invented calculus independently, so I suppose there could be two inventors of microfinance.  Who had nothing to do with the CIA.

I was at a meeting of an NGO looking to advance a Guatemalan (if I recall) project to help a village with whatever.  Two members of the village were present.  Have you applied to USAID?  "No thanks."  Fair enough.  "How about microfinance?"  Silence.  "It is a great system, you need it to help you."  Silencio.  "Well, if you are not willing to help yourselves..."

Came the reply from the "natives", "Microfinance is a trap."

Just so.  And people are figuring that out.  What people need is not microfinance, but freedom from state violence against their entrepreneurial efforts.  That is what is missing.

Forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Joy of Gospel Part Seven

At Chapter 62:

In many countries globalization has meant a hastened deterioration of their own cultural roots and the invasion of ways of thinking and acting proper to other cultures which are economically advanced but ethically debilitated. This fact has been brought up by bishops from various continents in different Synods. The African bishops, for example, taking up the Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, pointed out years ago that there have been frequent attempts to make the African countries “parts of a machine, cogs on a gigantic wheel. This is often true also in the field of social communications which, being run by centres mostly in the northern hemisphere, do not always give due consideration to the priorities and problems of such countries or respect their cultural make-up”

Funny word that, invasion.  USA now has an Africa Command over that Continent, referring to sub-Saharan Africa.  I wonder why?  In any event, no doubt Africa would benefit from more Xhosa News Service and less BBC.

It should be recalled that this document is largely directed at Catholics, and the clergy he leads. After that paragraph above there are 30 paragraphs on church activity, and then these points:

In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people and the concrete needs of the present time.

and

96. This way of thinking also feeds the vainglory of those who are content to have a modicum of power and would rather be the general of a defeated army than a mere private in a unit which continues to fight.

Certainly those working in the Church know who he is talking about.  Maybe this is what has the right-wingers upset.  He is coming after those who have settled in and blame the poor for being poor.

After another 40 paragraphs of exhortations to the troops, comes this gem:

The homily is the touchstone for judging a pastor’s closeness and ability to communicate to his people. We know that the faithful attach great importance to it, and that both they and their ordained ministers suffer because of homilies: the laity from having to listen to them and the clergy from having to preach them! 

I tell you, having sat through endless terrible homilies, this rings so true.  We may have Jesus in the Catholic church, but the Protestants know how to preach.

There are another 50 paragraphs on evangelization and then he gets back into politics, in this case referring to solidarity with the poor:

The word “solidarity” is a little worn and at times poorly understood, but it refers to something more than a few sporadic acts of generosity. It presumes the creation of a new mindset which thinks in terms of community and the priority of the life of all over the appropriation of goods by a few.

So what we have here is setting up the problem.  This is alluding to capitalism. This is usually the watershed to start talking about income redistribution, and with no one except me and maybe another 30 people on planet earth talking about free markets, it is unlikely free markets are going to be included in the discussion.  I am used to it.  But free markets work on their own, unilaterally.  And one still needs to heed cautions, and judge independent, unique, unilateral action against the cautions and problems being highlighted.

The private ownership of goods is justified by the need to protect and increase them, so that they can better serve the common good; for this reason, solidarity must be lived as the decision to restore to the poor what belongs to them. .... Changing structures without generating new convictions and attitudes will only ensure that those same structures will become, sooner or later, corrupt, oppressive and ineffectual.

So given capitalism, and given injustice, there must be a change of heart behind and change of structures.  Now if you believe that the poor did it to themselves, then this is all nonsense.  If you believe capitalism is the best system for distributing goods and services (and why wouldn't you if you got rich by it?) then this is all nonsense.

But capitalism, by any of its own definitions needs state interventions to make possible those outsized results for the few.  To maintain those examples of immense personal wealth, the masses must pay for a a system of programmed violence to maintain that putative wealth.  This is all to complicated to sit and and try to reform.

We need to grow in a solidarity which “would allow all peoples to become the artisans of their destiny”,[156] since “every person is called to self-fulfilment”

You cannot get there from capitalism.

Seeing their poverty, hearing their cries and knowing their sufferings, we are scandalized because we know that there is enough food for everyone and that hunger is the result of a poor distribution of goods and income. The problem is made worse by the generalized practice of wastefulness”.

Travelling the world, this is so clear.  Seeing starving people on TV satisfies those who believe we have an overpopulation problem, when in fact famine is always a distribution problem.  (And the real problem we face is an underpopulation problem in certain age groups in many countries... good luck with that.)

Now this is where the right wingers will go off the rails, note "just wage":

We are not simply talking about ensuring nourishment or a “dignified sustenance” for all people, but also their “general temporal welfare and prosperity”.[159]This means education, access to health care, and above all employment, for it is through free, creative, participatory and mutually supportive labour that human beings express and enhance the dignity of their lives. A just wage enables them to have adequate access to all the other goods which are destined for our common use.

If you do not fixate on "welfare" and "just wage" and health care, you might read something more.  I've been defining wealth as that range of goods and services available to the widest range of people with their own money, as opposed to the common definition of celebrity wealth, that is how much one person has concentrated unto himself.  And I've been pointing out that prosperity is rooted in the word hope.  "Employment" in terms of free, creative, participatory and mutually supportive labor certainly excludes being an employee, and certainly refers to self-employment, something capitalism militates against.  In self-employed, a just wage is what you get as you fine tune your offer to what best serves the most people you can serve.  In this way you buy your own "welfare, that range of goods and services which support you in thriving, buy your own education and health care. It is a lifelong balancing act, in the service of others. Sure, you are free to be a drone for the surveillance state at Google, but if you try to braid hair for a living without a cosmeticians license, the full, violent weight of the state will come down on you.  And then, since at once the education you received will not qualify you to work at google, and state violence forbids you to be self-employed at what you are good at.  so take welfare, until your line dies out.  And then finally tells you that the state religion, Darwin says you are destined for extermination anyway, well, at some point, maybe sitting in a classroom, you connect the dots.


This Pope is saying no to all of that.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Joy of Gospel Part Five

Continuing with paragraph 56 from yesterday, I paused because there is a line I find particularly interesting.

Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

Here this Pope has opened up, or reopened the discussion of usury, using the common term today, interest.  This Apostolic Exhortation is a run down on what he plans to work on for his papacy.  He got pretty specific here, debt and interest keeping people from enjoying their real purchasing power.  Again, just so.  And if so, then what?  I wonder what, if anything, more he will have to say on this.  If you think what he has said so far will has chaffed the right wingers, wait until he challenges usury, commonly known and practiced today as charging interest, something still strictly forbidden by the Catholic Church, with the most dire threats.

Most international trade is about tax evasion and money laundering.  These lawless supranationals get rules written for their benefit, and then exploit them, and they are lawless for the corruption of the State actors who bring violence to protect them.  And yes, there is no logical limit to the damage they do.

And yes, the environment is defenseless before these lawless entities, who show no regard for property rights.  And he using the term deified market, again, not the free market.  The free market recognizes itself as merely a clearing house of goods and services, certainly not a god.

In the context of politics grounded in ethics and proceeding from submitting to God, the Pope says:

58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders.

Now, there is trouble.  I wanted to laugh out loud reading that, but he is not kidding.  This reminds me of the Church teaching on just war and just cause for war.  After reading it, you realize, well, gee whiz, there is no such thing as a just war or a just cause in the real world.  Exactly!

And there will never be a reform of political leaders, nor any effort, vigorous or otherwise to change approach. One requirement to get in office is inability to change approach.  The very vesting of power in individuals is directly contradictory to the express will of God. And after that contradictions, when God gave israel what they wanted, their kings proved relentlessly horrible, even David and Solomon.  Read it for yourself.

So what is this about?  The Pope is not naive, and I suppose there is something to expectations, and that certainly some good will come from some expectation that people behave themselves.  I like the Hong Kong approach better: people are the same everywhere, anyone who gathers power will be corrupt in that measure, therefore, don't give anyone power.  Almost anything government can do, a free market can provide, and that which a free market cannot provide, neither can a government.

Now...

Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve.

He can only be talking about usury, which allows you to buy today something you do not need and charge it off to your kids later.  Is he going to expand on this in the coming years?

It serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts.

Wow, how long have I been complaining about people clamoring for security, to be abused?

Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they claim that the solution is an “education” that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments, businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.

Yes, Darwin provides a comprehensive cover to explain why some countries are poor, and it then allows those responsible for the poverty to discharge and responsibility. And given the hopeful things said above about change of approach by politicians, I do wonder how he expects this to improve.

He has left all of this open ended, except for advising submission to God, but I expect he will expand on this in time.

All for today...

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Wenzel v Kinsella on Intellectual Property

A theoretical debate broke out between two Austrian economists on intellectual property rights.  Both parties are famous in economics, so it is a useful listen.  But neither includes the merchants' anti-IPR view, and so I’ll quote someone who summarized the debate and comment.

14) Wenzel asks Kinsella if his Drudge formula is superabundant and asks why it is not scarce. Kinsella says that it is not scarce because it is not rivalrous. Kinsella says that a rivalrous good is one that can only be exclusively controlled by one person at a time. Wenzel asks why that is the definition and claims that there is rivalry between him and someone selling the same formula as him (and driving the price down).

Here are the problems...

1. Wenzel's idea is not scarce...  the better the idea, the more people have it at the same time

500 BC - Mo Ti,  Buddha,  Socrates all working on the same ideas and largely same results.

1700 - Isaac Newton  and Leibnitz

1850 Darwin and Wallace (and Mendel, who actually analyzed the data correctly as science.)

2000 Google and Baidu.

2.  When Wenzel’s idea is put out in public, 7.999 million times of 8 it will fail.  Great in the head, unworkable in real life.  Even if he fails, Wenzel has IPR which is enforced by state violence.  Anyone who would make Wenzel’s idea better is stopped from doing so, (or at least without Wenzel’s permission which means money to Wenzel).  Are we not yet done with systems that pay people for nonperformance?

3. Competition is not rivalry.  Competition is to strive with.  In comedy and fashion and religion and the arts where copying is allowed, creativity explodes.  Because the code for the internet was public domain, we had the explosion of benefit. 

4. What every pro-IPR advocate forgets is the benefit of competition. Competition makes each iteration better, and he who listens to customers best wins.  With IPR there is zero need to listen to customers.  

5. IPR advocates ignore the work necessary to gain a customer.   Ideas are cheap and plentiful.  The work necessary to create the product, line up production, set up the marketing channel, devise the logistics, get customers and set up a payment mechanism, there is the real work.  I think one reason some people are so pro-IPR is they understand this, and desire to harness the poor schmucks who actually perform with a private tax enforced by public-paid violence.

6. IPR denies a customer a choice when there is no scarcity to limit choice.  With real estate, if I want a room with that ocean view, I very well may have no choice but to check into that hotel.  With Wenzel’s Better Drudge-a-rthm, once known, there is no reason I should not be free to buy Kinsella’s  Bestest Drudge-a-rthm.

25) Wenzel asks Kinsella to demonstrate to him how he uses his Drudge formula. Kinsella asks Wenzel if he can tell him what’s in his left pocket. Wenzel says that he can’t and that’s the exact point. Wenzel says that knowledge is scarce.

The putatively scarce idea is useless “in his pocket.”  It can only be useful when it is revealed.  But Wenzel believes once revealed, his idea loses its value if not monopolized by Wenzel by means of state-backed violence.  What else in commerce is valuable as long as nobody knows about it, but worthless if the market becomes aware of it?  (Well, nothing, not even a trade secret.)  Working backward from the IPR rationale to the problem it solves, we find the putative problem risible.

Once an idea is revealed it becomes valuable by improvements the more people that use it and work with it.  It is those who use it and work with it that make it valuable.  Why should society lay a restraining obligation on those who produce value through action, and obligate the productive to share their profits with one (of no doubt many) who merely thought up an idea and then did nothing about it, or is incapable of actualizing a benefit to society with the idea?

The idea that there is no innovation without IPR is debunked by the very IPR laws: "so many people are so willing to work on sheer speculation in order to serve the market we need laws to keep people from innovating, or we will have people innovating."  

If Wenzel wants to make money with his idea, then he can implement his plan.  Others implementing their plans take nothing from Wenzel, since ultimately the customer decides who the customer will patronize, and customers ought not be denied choice, especially denied by threat of violence.

On the other hand, a piece of land is property.  It is not hidden.  It is scarce, since that is all there is of that property.  Various people have various ideas of what to do with it.  They will bid against each other, and he who has the best, highest use will pay the most.

No such scarcity exists with ideas.  Everyone can use the same idea at once, everyone can tweak it anyway they like, and everyone can present it to the customer at once.  Everyone has invested their own time talent and treasure in their iteration.  Wenzel is out nothing in this scenario, and in fact, Wenzel benefits along with everyone else by the choices and price reductions that result.  

Even if someone charges less than Wenzel for the same thing Wenzel sells - an event that has never occurred in the history of mankind - (If so, cite a single example in the history of mankind) Wenzel benefits from the option of the alternative offer, if nothing else than to discover the alternative market that the alternative offer has highlighted.  Merchants benefit from competitors in this way very often.

32) Kinsella says that Wenzel’s theory seems to be that if he can sell something for a price, then he should have some sort of anti-competitive right to keep the price high, which makes it scarce in a sense, so it can be owned. Wenzel says that if something has a price, it is scarce.

It is not the idea that is scarce.  What is scarce is Wenzel’s time, talent and treasure and effort to capitalize on the idea.  The only right in natural law is Wenzel’s income from Wenzel’s work with the idea.

IBM, the #1 patent holder in USA has figured this out.  They are open sourcing their patents, because there is no value in owning a patent.  The real value is in IBM’s consulting on how to use the ideas it “owns.”  It is weird that IPR results in a paradox: the best thing to do if you own IPR is to open source it.  

What is also odd is Wenzel says his secret idea is valuable.  To get IPR you must necessarily make it public, at which point it is no longer secret.  So he demands rights based on an internal contradiction.

Is he conflating trade secrets and “intellectual property,” which is a tactic, not a property?

See the game business Valve for open sourced everything, and very blurred lines between  employees, customers, etc.

Kinsella asks Wenzel to agree that while multiple people couldn’t use the exact same scarce physical means to make a cake or a bloody mary, multiple people could use the same knowledge at the same time. Wenzel agrees, but says that not everyone is going to know the information, so the information is scarce.

But the moment the idea is out, it is not longer scarce, it is infinitely available and duplicable, like Thos. Jefferson’s idea that when one lights a candle from another candle, the original candle has lost nothing.  Certainly one can argue that the owner of the original lit candle has a property right in the fire, and everyone should pay him for any light there might be. But that is not an argument for IPR, since no IPR law protects fire, and fire is a natural phenomenon, like rain.

But the analogy does works in the negative: IPR advocates are like the person with the lit candle who demands everyone else pay him for light.  Anyone who refuses to pay the individual who "owns" the light should be punished by the community for failure to pay.

IPR advocates want us to be kept in the dark, unless we pay them a private tax for the use of our candles.

***John Spiers will be offering an all-day seminar on small business international trade start up at Orange Coast College, Los Angeles Area, June 29, 2013.  Full info here...***

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Laws To Protect Us

In example #28374636265 and #28374636266 of how government brings chaos and anarchy brings spontaneous order, let's examine -

#28374636265 -

A gunmaker says it will not sell to law enforcement any gun that is denied to citizens.  This of course reflects the fact that the 2nd amendment is about citizens having the fire power to defend themselves from the state, not about hunting.  They will continue military sales, which is and incongruent position, but it is a start.  The reasoning is the practical problem of accidentally selling an illegal gun to a citizen over a mix-up when selling to law enforcement. (A cop buying a gun legal for cops but for personal use). Every time people tell me "England outlaws guns" I think English cops are not armed either.  So the police should show leadership and disarm themselves.

And surely the powers that be know that gun regulations increase gun ownership!  Every time there is a gun grab sales take off.  And only the inner cities get gun control.  The suburbs arm up.  And the inner cities are heavily reliant on welfare.  And if welfare dries up, there will be looting.  And if looting the local Safeway will not be restocked.  And if not restocked the inner city people will spread out looking for food.  And meet a well-armed suburbs.  Wait...  could this all be on purpose?

#28374636266 -

Prohibition of liquor increased wine consumption.  Say what?

Although the number of wineries in California fell from more than 1,000 to about 150, three legal loopholes enables wine production to continue. First, wineries were allowed to produce wine for sacramental use in churches. Second, wine was allowed for medicinal purposes. The limited number of wineries that did produce continuously under Prohibition owed their survival to these two exemptions. The third and most important loophole concerned home production. According to Section 29 of the Volstead Act, each household was permitted to produce up to two hundred gallons of "non-intoxicating" fruit juice for consumption by members of the family over eighteen.

Colman notes that this loophole allowing for the legal production of homemade wine was "a boon for the grape growers." While wineries had declined in number, "acres under vine doubled between 1919 and 1927" due to the home vintner surge. This led to an increase in wine consumption. He correctly indicates that federal enforcement was weak, and sometimes non-existent, because there were few means for enforcing these laws in the case of homemade juice. An entire industry developed in order to meet the needs of producers for their winemaking supplies.

Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper eliminated DARE when he read a secret justice Department report that stated what every educator already knew, DARE increases drug use among the participants.

How come programs to make things better actually make them worse stay alive/

In the specific case of DARE, they keep changing it.  Every iteration is proven counter productive.  When challenged, the DARE minions, like Head Start, say "yes, but that is the old version.  We fixed it.  NOW it works. "  Until the new version too is proven counter productive.

Darwinists use the exact same argument.  "O yes, but that is the old version..."  Even Darwin came up with about dozen versions...

There is a something about Darwin, guns, inner cities, drugs counterproductive programs...  that somehow all tie together, and when the penny drops, people sometimes go berzerk.  Caution, harsh language.  I know how she feels, I'd like her in my classes.


Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

How 91% Tax Will Crush the Dope Trade

I always wondered how various friends, productive members of society who merely self-medicate since we have such a brutal medical regime in the USA, can be using dope for over 40 years and never they nor their dealers ever get busted.  Well, it is a well oiled system.  They use marijuana and cocaine, whereas what is sent into the ghetto is criminalized.

A deep undercover narc explained it to me. All that dope money has to be laundered to be used.  The welfare checks go out, the crack flows in, the two are exchanged, and the shadowing forces come up with fantastic sums.  Now, it has to be laundered to be used.  If you want to transfer a million bucks somewhere to use it, you have to show you earned it.

So you have a chain of pizza joints that take in $2500 a month, or whatever.  You declare $50,000 per month, the difference being the dope receipts. You depoist the dope money in your local bank account. You pay about 30% in taxes, or $15,000.  Now, you have $35,000 a month with which you can do whatever you like.  Plus, you've paid protection money to the government and you will NEVER be busted.

As an aside, people who argue if we legalize dope we can tax it are delusional on two fronts.

1. It is already taxed, if anything the tax revenue will go down, as dope is put in food (medibles) which is not taxed in our state, and of course prescriptions (medical marijuana) is not taxed.  So you see why the state people do not want marijuana liberalization?  It will kill a huge tax base.

2. Genocide is still in play in USA. When Lincoln's "back to Africa" plan did not work out, progressives have been angling to liquidate the population with some African heritage ever since.  Crack to the Ghetto is the American "slo-cooking" way.  The reason I don't like this policy is we are denied the good of the competition from these targeted groups. I disagree with Darwin on the desirability of their extermination.  If for no other reason, as a Celt, it was less than 100 years ago the progressives were saying the same things about us.  Celts are tolerated only because we'll fight the progressives' wars for them.

So as mentioned earlier, if the fed tax rate goes to 91%, small businesses, legitimate ones, will simple spend the money inside the business on the owner and his family, before taxes.

Drug dealers will have a heck of a time trying to spend $35,000 per month within the confines of what is a legitimate expense in a pizza parlor.  It takes time to spend, and more time to spend legitimately when your money is hot.

The very best plan is freedom, deregulate, unregulate anything, something, everything.  None of that will happen because all peoples clamor to be oppressed, as first noticed in 1 Samuel 8 (and emphasized in 1 Samuel 12.)

So what is the next best thing for economic recovery.  Give 'em what they want, good and hard.  91% on top incomes, and good and hard down the line.  Who gets nailed?  Money launderers and anyone who takes home a paycheck, like corporate raiders.  Of course, the taxes will go up on the small guys too, employees (and services decrease), but then such oppression is what they clamor for when they turn in a job application.

Yes, 91%, plus unregulate medicine.  China will never know what hit them in terms of economic competition.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Christianity & Slavery

I must challenge the idea that the elimination of slavery was a triumph of Christian consciousness and effort.  That slavery would be "outlawed" is in itself suspect, because name any other time the Government made things better by laws.  The only just laws are private law, such as the law merchant and common law. The part that makes me suspicious is timing: just as the industrial revolution, and usury-based business emerged, slavery as private chattel became illegal.  This should cause any observer of human affairs to say "Wait a minute..."

Just as business and the warfare state began to form alliances  (East India Company), and rewrite laws changing property rights protecting exploitation, and the usurers were unleashed to lend credit as money, and with fractional reserve at that, then who needed slavery to get the maximum exploitation of mankind?  Following Darwin, by these new means the elimination of the races to be exterminated is hastened.

Harvard Professor Orlando Patterson lifelong review of slavery is distilled in this book Slavery & Social Death.  In it, after reviewing slavery in all times and places, comes up with s a definition:

Slavery is the permanent, violent domination of natally alienated and generally dishonored persons.

He then goes on to posit various iterations of slavery against this standard, to enlightening effect.



Truly slavery as practiced in USA met this definition in its harshest sense.    And slaves as personal property was outlawed in USA after the Civil War.

But the Bible teaches when one demon is cast out Seven return to take its place.  And truly, with the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, the slavery that returned was seven times worse.  Read Oshinkys on the state slavery that followed the 13th Amendment.  And those admirers and acolytes of Lincoln, the nazis, to the heights they took state slavery.



Getting rid of something, the Bible is teaching, is not a matter of legislation and war, it is a matter of prayer and fasting (some demons are only cast out by prayer and fasting.)

And look at the typical american today.  Their circumstances are permanent, they have no effective way of governing themselves.  Election fraud is material and effective.  We are violently dominated, the police can enter our homes at will, arrest and strip search on any pretext, search us at airports and kill with impunity.   Between big government and big pharma, from birth control to mind alteration, connections in families are broken irretrievably.  And our entertainment is about ridicule, disrespect.  (Your fired!)

By lending credit, and at fractional reserve at that, usury allows the powers that be today to indenture future generations to pay for money the powers that be spend today.  Talk about natal alienation!

Did Chistianity eliminate slavery?  Not yet.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Gates & Darwin Join Forces

Following George Bernard Shaw's suggestion for getting rid of undesirables, following Darwin, the nazis came up with Zyklon B.    I believe the powers that be learned their lesson and now use slower acting chemicals to destroy populations.

Having failed to make any change in education, in spite of billions spent, Bill and Melinda Gates have thrown in the towel on education and now are getting back to their first efforts, reducing population in Africa and  Asia.  For women, for the children, all that.

The problem with capitalism is it denies us innovations to address problems because it concentrates too much power in too few hands.  Between usury, intellectual property law, and taxing the many to protect the few, freedom is so constrained that we are denied the good of all the competitors.  The Gates know their billions are safe from taxes in their "charity" as long as they stick with the program.

Update:  How come those white people who think there are too many people on the earth always work at reducing the number of people brown and darker?

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Coca Cola & Genocide

When the stated goals are genocide, the means are genocidal, and the results are genocide, at what point do we say, "What a minute, that is genocide."

Darwin specifically taught, later in his career, in order to clear up any doubt, that the negro and aborigine were marked for, well you read it....

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.


That is some seriously loose talk.  Is that permission to "hurry the inevitable?"  I met people who believe it does.  A Coca Cola insider tells us:

Putman, whose positions at Coca-Cola included U.S. head of marketing for carbonated drinks, said in the interview that among his achievements was tailoring the company’s national advertising campaigns to specific groups. The approach helped Coca-Cola intensify marketing to target audiences such as African Americans and Hispanics.

I don't drink coca cola products because they are nasty. Beer is my soft drink, and I raised my daughters to drink beer and wine as a beverage. OK, mostly clean water and juices, but we did not do soft drinks and I never minded if they drank alcohol, like the Italians. Anyway, I digress.

Are americans with some african ancestry targets for genocide?  Clearly.  What to do about it?  Well, shun companies that target americans with some african ancestry.  That is necessary.  That is sufficient. If we just stop targeting americans with some african ancestry, they will do just fine, like anyone else.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post

Economic Science & Your Money

The pretense of economists is the field is one of science, in which there is no right or wrong, any more than there is right or wrong in physics.  If you increase the money supply, you spur demand, that is simple economics.  If you let go of a pencil, it drops.  That is simple physics.

If you try to argue that raising an interest rate on a currency used in an integrated worldwide economy has far wider effect than a dropped pencil, which is a local matter, they will argue it is merely a matter of scale, not kind.  And with computers, we can reckon at scales unimaginable heretofore.

The fellow who is credited with the founding of modern economics is Adam Smith.  You have not read Adam Smith, because no one reads these founding people, like Darwin and Marx.  They are generally unreadable.  If you were to read Adam Smith, you would learn that he was a moral philosopher, and his great work, shortened in title to the Wealth of Nations, was really a sort of encyclopedia (a common thing to produce in those days) of all economic ideas.  In it you'll find capitalism, free markets, communism, mercantilism, feudalism,  if only in contrast to his obvious editorial bias (if not by the terms we use today).  Karl Marx found communism in it.  Each reader finds his favorite system outlined.

But what to make of a "science" in which few people agree on definitions?  Within economics, there are many definitions, some actually opposite, of profit, money, corporation, the firm, labor, capital, interest and so on.

Where would physics be if physicists did not agree on the definition of thrust, lift and BTUs?  They may have different theories of how flight occurs, but they agree on terminology.  Not so in the "science" of economics.

 Yesterday USA's top politician and its top economist had an economic discussion in which they operated in different universes, based on definitions, in which they talked past each other and the moderator kept saying in the background "I don't understand..."

Note on the subject of the discussion, Krugman states, and I quote him:

"We live in an economy where money is not just green pieces of paper with faces of dead presidents on them.  Money is the result of a financial system that includes a variety of assets.  We are not even quite sure where the line between money and non-money is... it's kind of a continuum."

Now you are saying, "Wait... what?!  'Non-money?'  How come I've never heard of non-money?  What the hell is that?"

It's a dirty little secret.  The Greek debt is in non-money, but the Greeks are obliged to pay it in money.  Bankers and governments oblige taxpayers, ad infinitum (ad nauseum) with bonds for stadiums and wars (Seattle is getting a 3rd and 4th major league stadium, plus a multi-billion-plus 2 lane tunnel constructed under mud flats to replace an eight lane highway. San Francisco simply eliminated the rickety Bay Freeway after the Loma Linda quake damage, with no discernable economic loss.)

Here is how it works:  Seattle voters hated the idea and did not want such a tunnel.  A lawyer ran for mayor, staking his liberal credentials and lawyerly integrity on "no tunnel."  He won.  All interested parties now know the game: As the mayor says no, economic matters are arranged so the mayor and his are now and will ever be well compensated if the tunnel gets a go-ahead.  Seattle, drowning in debt and with bondholders on the hook for now FOUR new major league stadiums, is capable of having only so much more debt mulcted from the productive segment of the citizenry.

Although the mayor is "against" the tunnel he negotiates an obligation on the rest of the state taxpayers that any overruns will be at the rest of the states expense.  Now, the tunnel can command debt well beyond what mere Seattle can pay.  With all of this in place, a by-election brings in enough votes to "pass the tunnel" and the mayor "grows in his job" and now supports the tunnel project, based on a by-election in which a tiny minority outvoted a tinier minority.  Ka-ching!  Seattle still hates the idea, but too bad.

This is played out as President Obama (in his role as willing-puppet) cuts off energy resources in USA, and directs funding to the whimsical and ludicrous "renewable" sources, and funds Brazilian oil exploration, assuring when he is out of office he has access to riches beyond his wildest dreams.  They are greying his hair now, as they did Bill Clinton, so he can assume the role of sage elder statesman.

If my reading is cynical, why does it happen this way in every city, at every level, every time?

All of those bond obligations are non-money.  They must be paid off in money.  When USA builds dams in Peru, they are credited as a debt to USA in non-money, for which Peruvians must pay off in money.  Whereas the cohort of elite Peruvians who went to Harvard execute the deals, it is the common Peruvian who must pay it off.  It is not possible to pay it off, ever.  With so much wealth mulcted out from Peru to USA, Peru can never find the means locally to support local investment.

As a side note, in the science of economics, there is a strange term, "moral hazard."  Not inconceivable in a field laid out by a moral philosopher, but a strange term for a field purporting to be science.

Therefore, the problem in the "science" of economics of no set definitions, and its attending confusion, is not an accident.  It is a fundamental requirement.  Hey, who cares if the city runs up debt in terms of non-money?  Well, you will when you get less and less for more and more of your labor.  When those non-money pensions are paid out in less and less money because the value is diverted to bond holders.

USA perfected this practice overseas and brought it home.  What goes around comes around.

Iceland has said no to paying out money against non-money debts.  Iceland is recovering slowly but vigorously.  Greece is working on a way to pay off non-money debts with Greek workers money.  Greece is up in flames.  Iceland is showing the non-violent and proper response to the game.

The game is the concentration of power in the hands of a few who may oblige the many with non-money debts that must be paid in money.  The cover is economics as science.  But where science is ordered to knowledge and understanding, economics is an exercise in confusing people.

To understand it, you must understand the definition of money.  And non-money.  I suspect less than 1% of the 99% can define money properly.  Krugman can, which is why he can draw the distinction he does.  Ron Paul can too.  But they have a radically different view of the role of the state. If the 99% understood the terms properly, we'd say no.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post