F Dominicus Blog : Lybia

The lybian catastrophe

Friedrich Dominicus — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 04:46:00 GMT

Before that all I wrote:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/fdominicus/archive/2011/08/31/the-chances-and-risk-for-lybia.aspx

Now Lybia will get even less than even the French. Scharia as “base” or right. So in fact Lybia wants to exchange one kind of dictatorship with another one. And this time we “must” help the “poor” Lybians. Well not with my agreement. If they think Scharia is a good base for civil rights they should keep it to themselves.

I do not want to get even near a country with such “laws”

I really wished that people would surprise me in a positive way. But no one dictator killed another one waiting behind the next corner. What a fucking stupid business.

The chances and risk for Lybia

Friedrich Dominicus — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 05:57:00 GMT

Well it seems that Ghaddaffi was "gone".. That itself probably is good news. Now there will be some interims government. The people of Lybia now have chances hardly ever seen by countries like ours. The chances are gigantiv and the risks not less.

If they embrace sound money, no corruption, money as value and debt free government. They will strive without comparison

Unfortunatly for them it seems most of the interrims government were risen and "de"-educated in developed country. So I'm nearly sure that they will follow the developed countries. I do not think corruptoin will be fought very hard. I do not think they will not have a central bank nor "gold-money" they. The bureaucrats from the IMF, etc will come and suggest them they can not use gold as money.

If they will not embrace austrian economics they will be just another dictatorship this time under "green" authority.

If I'd live in Lybia I'd ask for the following: 1) civil rights 2) free markets and freedom of contracts 2) sound money based on gold or anything else of value 3) no acceptance for corruption 4) no debts allowed for the government

I'm afraid they will get 1) civil rights 2) Bureaucrats (probably too much in too short time, Argument we can not trust markets) 3) regulated markets and limits to freedom of contract (e.g not the freedom to accept anything but gold for payment 4) "democratic" parties 5) central bank and fractional reserve 7) fiat-money 8) tons of corrupton and "worthless" money

The chanced of the first are surely below 1% so I bet that Lybia will just get another France .... The bastard bureacrats from hell will do their best to start a new round of suppression, theft, black mailing etc. It's not that they will want freedom for everyone, but support of the population for their vermins

War in Lybia

Friedrich Dominicus — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:52:00 GMT

Well someone pointed me to: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/04/applied_ignoran.html That's worth spreading and has to be considered.

Just and unjust wars?

Friedrich Dominicus — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:38:00 GMT

Well what's so very special about Lybia? Why is it "ok" to go to war with them but why not to any other dictatorships?

We all know it can't e civil rights, because they never were a problem in the past and still ain't a problem with a lot of other countries. In front of them all China. We even know civil rights are disputable by the US. Or can anyone see anything else but that with Guantanamo.

Now you may say: It's the oil stupid. I'm afraid this does not buy you anything. Lybia always has delivered. So no this seems not to be the reason.

Now let's ask another way. Who started it all. The French "president" Sarkozy. So now we probably come to the real reasons. At first his party is hard pressed by the NP and his popularity is "gone". France has as other European Countries too much debt and the population gets older and older. There are not reserves and so it seems extending the power of France over their "border" and getting hands on somthing as important as the Oil from Lybia is, you've to admit, appealing.

If we consider that Politicians (sorry deledefs) are masters of double-speech and double-think. It all falls into places. You say we must get rid of the dictator and let Lybia get "democratic". Now in the back he probably think: "and well they better get democratic the "french" way. You probably can say. "Well we the French will help you build up your society" and you can bet they'll promise sending money. Money they don't have but you know we just have to take more credit and all is fine.

In return you may come to an "agreement" which allows some government controlled corporation (France is full of them) to exploit the Oil fields. And suddenly the pieces fall in place. You get some thing people "want" and desire "oil" and you get money and "more" power and control

This sounds reasonable for the french intentions. It does not explain the participation of the US and GB. But GB seems to always be ready to go to war for whatever reason. Maybe it has something to due with "Britannia rule the world" or the like. One things the least interested country be the US. But I guess they still think of themselves as the "super power", they have not get it that they are "loosing" this status. Too much debt and too far extended war areas have brought down every imperial. Just think of Alexander the "Great", the Persian, the Mongols, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Greek, Rome, Germany, Great Britain, France etc.

No super power ever in the world was able to extend their influence above a certain level. And it seems the US are following this route. They simply can not afford going to war "everywhere" they did loose in Vietnam, and well you can't say they won in Afghanistan. So yes I think they overstretched their possibilities. But seeing that and accepting it are "different" pair of shoes....

There' can't be any doubt that Ghadffi is a dictator int the worse sense. He has oppressed all the citizens but those which currently favour him. However the US, and we all will see that getting rid of a dictator does not mean get rid of dictator ship. For that one needs a "complete" defeat as we've seen it in Germany. But still after the WW II many of the "high" rollers get high positions in the "new" country also. You know bureaucrats are unflexible if dealing with people like you an me, but are high flexiblity on whom rules they follow. However the Germans were fed up with the nazis, do we know if the population of Lybia is also?

We also remember the US have supported the fundamentalists in Afghanistan as they were on war with Russia. The same which have started their actions in the US. Al Kaida was obviously financed by much of American money, as they were aimable. They spend their money on weapons and brain-washing. And now the US is trying to defeat them... It's not unlikely that the rebels are of the same kind. So it seems the US better had not followed France. I bet even if Ghadaffi has gone, we'll here from Lybia and "terrorists" again. And that after the failed war in Afghanistan. The politician of US and other countries do not learn.....

"Practical" arrangements

Friedrich Dominicus — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:24:00 GMT

Ah well let's see the US consider military force against Libya. And no they do not consider the same for China.

A "practical arrangement". If he enemy seem to have lost, get him. Otherwise do everything to please them. China has killed 25 years ago. Reaction? Nil.

Not doing business with China is not an option any more. Because the USA have "outsourced" everything they need to have an own sound producing industry. All the modern IT stuff it made in China, maybe Taiwan (but pst don't say that loud or BB China will get very upset). Yes there is Intel but hardly any stuff else needed for building computers are "outsourced". Yes it's to maximize the profits of the managers. And if that fails, then Big Daddy is not "far" away. A few trillions here or there among "friends"....