F Dominicus Blog : war

It seems a financial tsunami is building up.

Friedrich Dominicus — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:14:00 GMT

Well it can not surprise an Austrian but it may be the "unthinkable" for the current main stream voodo economists.

Just some things about Europe: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-09/20-facts-about-collapse-europe-everyone-should-know

It surely shows how the credit expansion break down, leaves many hopeless people. Yes central banks can print money, but they can not make every one "rich". Just those near the central banks and those getting the new printed money first gain. So the biggest gainer up till now are the states.

Anyway that does not help really. Because there is one barrier no-one can get around. In the end you can just distribute what you have. The fed can of course distribute new money. But that does not make "more" produced goods. So it's clear the money de-evaluates against any good. Of course there are speed differences. And that makes it impossible to see the real effects on all the money printing. You just can see it in the figures of falling prices and falling output. The crisis we have are a direct result on all this distribution, and lies.

Take Greece as an example. Let us assume the money supply for the last few years would just be constant (no credits from the EU to pay the debts of the bonds hold by european banks) and assume that the production really has lost somewhere between 10 - 25 %. Then there is less to buy but the money still is there. So the prices of the most needed things must raise and in the end that means things for eating and housing. Now assume you have lost your job also, that means the money you used to earn not there, but it's somewhere else, how much harsher is it getting for you then?

The US are in another death spriral, because they can not even nearly pay there bills without new debts. So the US state needs the FED to give them credit. And the FED delivers. It's the biggest holder of new issued debts in the world. So the cycle is the FED accepts bonds as "security" gives out now money for them, and the states distributes it. And again those getting the state money first (that are of course the receiver of payments from state) do get fresh money first, but they do not produce anything. So they can buy more than the less lucky non state workers and so they are "loosing" against them.

And now we have another problem, private debts for all kind of things, which means more and more must go deeper and deeper into debts. The most prominent example are the debts for a university training. And guess what happens now the state wants to give them the money to pay for the debts. But of course for every $ they hand out another 0.33¢ of new debts has to issued, and again the winners are those which get the new money first and those getting it latest are even more squeezed"

The situation now get more problematic by the way. More and more are dependent on state payments, the state needs more and more money for that, and must make new debts and those getting the new money first profit and on the other end the dependence on state payments raises.

We know this can work for a while, but you also can see that this can not hold forever. We the Germans know what this can do to an economy. And even from Mises has phrased it clearly: "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

I'm more and more convinced, that the total catastrophe is more desirable then stopping credit expansion. Because I can not see any really effort to stop the credit expansion. Currently it seems the money is just "going" around in the system and we use credit to pay for other credits. It's impossible that this can work....

Your data

Friedrich Dominicus — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:34:00 GMT

belong to you. Feel free to give them away to whomever you like but don't be surprised if it backfires.

With every new day and new news about Facebook I'm happy I'm not "in". If you just google for my name you can get a lot of information. And I know this will stay forever. Yes I'm unimportant and nobody but maybe one or two cares. That's fine with me. But I write what I think and "reveal" what I want and what I decide.

With Facebook I know all my data are in access to Facebook, who am I to know to whom they give access even if I would not agree? I simply do not know. Facebook needs desperately new sources of income. There stocks still are hell of expensive, and they must earn much more to get just near somewhat rational regions. So If they'd earn 10 billions one might things that 90 billions are "fair" priced, But So what else but your data should drive it's profits.

If you feel Facebook offers something to you then fine use it, but I for my part have decided that I want mine to stay mine. I do not want even more advertisements in my mail box, nor do I like to get stuffed with it every day, every click. In Germany the biggest advisor for debt handling Schufa have announced to start collecting user information on facebook for their credit rankings. How would you like that? I can just say, I'm not amused.

And within 5 years I'm sure you state agencies will put pressure on Facebook to get hands on our data. Of course all for the greater goog of the american state. And they will tell, those who do not have anything to hide can simply disclose that information. Well I guess they will do it even more "subtle". I bet Facebook will find a way to provide them with your data. Backdoors, hacker attacks, viruses, trojan horse, I don't doubt it a second that NSA should be able to crack accounts in the hundreds of thousands if they are inclined and told to do so. Your data? Not if you give them away that freely.....

Times they change

Friedrich Dominicus — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 04:44:00 GMT

Dear Reader you probably know why the NATO is in Afghanistan?

Well it's to fight terrorism. We know the worst we can imagine is that the Taliban will rule again.

Feel free to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan And there we can read: ". The US viewed the conflict in Afghanistan as an integral Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to anti-Soviet forces through the Pakistani intelligence services, in a program called Operation Cyclone.[72][73]"

The following page is cited also: http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/24198

Now think about it. The Criminal Intelligency Agency was authorised be the president of the United state to "handle" that stuff. Well how would you name something like supporting war in without beeing involved officially. The CIA works outside any limits, I guess the way things work is the president says something. the CIA hears and start acting. They can so without much control from any parliament, They even can gather their own finaces with illegal transactions (e.g selling drugs) So the US fights drugs at the US/Mexican border but the CIA is free to just ignore that. Feel free to fetch the Book "Liberty defined" by Ron Paul.

Now if you bee a soldier down in Afghanistan. Guess what you are fighting someone who was financed and supported by your own government, You feel that "thrill"?

The state never was the solution to any problem and you can see it's getting worse the bigger the state gets. In the end one really can day " you got what you've paid for..." Big government -> big injustice and -> a terrifying large number of casualties.

Lybia and Syria

Friedrich Dominicus — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 05:55:00 GMT

Well "nice" to see if two do the same it's not the same.

Ghadaffi kills his population and all but a few come with planes and bombs.

Assad kills his population and it's not even mentioned.

I wonder what will happen if the population will walk the streets in Germany and USA. Maybe in Germany we start another war for "freeing" the poor population?

One can not believe this. The most important thing yesterday has been some totally unimportant wedding but the killing of a few dozens or even hundreds. Who cares?

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.....

How many measurements do exist

Friedrich Dominicus — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:05:00 GMT

For deciding if one goes to war or not?

So there will be a flight-prohibited zone above Lybia. Well what about Bahrain? What about Yemen?

The french president clams a "vicotry" also above Germany. Oh yeah, the french go to war (but only Lybia) they do nothing for Bahrain or Yemen. I guess that's "just"

I can't tell what would be a proper "reaction". But it's obvious that this is as arbitrary as it can get. Ah yes Quadaffi is "brutal", what a suprise!. For 30 years it was good to be "kind" to him how many were killed during that time or just vanished? But no Quadaffi was good because he "stabilizes". What? Ah yes the fundamentalists. What a a nice "thing".

I wish all the men in north africa peace, an the freedom to say "thanks, but no" we do no need politicians. There's nothing good to be expected. As long as corruption and nepotism is "the way of live", no one can live in peace. I'd suggest opening all frontiers, getting rid of all the politicians and go back to money with "real" value. If they don't to that the way is chrystal clear the "choosen" (by whatever means) control the money, the print it and use if first. Quaddafis fortune is estimated to be between 20 - 150 Billions. Have he worked for that money? No he has the guns and got it from everyone by force. What a "great" man.

He is and was rich enough to buy soldiers as he liked. And well it seems those bought have not problems killing whatever comes along. Be it other soldiers, men, women or children. So yes he should "be sued" for it. But why then stop with Quadaffi? There's not reason for that really. All this countries are more or less led by "clans" and so how many of them should "be killed"? We have accepted them as "real partner", the policitians and manager have visited them to "get into business". So either they were wrong the whole time or they are wrong now. When was the time wrong became right and when was the time where write became wrong? I don't know. But I know that nearly all of the population have suffered under their "leaders" and so I wish them all that their "leaders" will have to go.

However I'm sceptical, there will be new "leaders" and it's not unlikely that the will be as bad as the earlier ones... Maybe even worse. Who knows?

Show your face (the real one)

Friedrich Dominicus — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:08:00 GMT

It's always interesting to see how Deledefs make their "own" kind of reality. Let's take using stolen things for something. We can assume it was illegal to send the docs from the diverse places to wikileak. Now we can see interesting reaction: Those publishing that stuff should be jailed or even better killed. The always start babbling about security of whomever. Who has send the soldiers down to Iraque/Afghanistan. Yes indeed the same persons. It is acceptable to harm someone in the name of some artificial construct like a country, but if information is published about the same mission, than this is an unacceptable risk? Then the very same deldefs accept happily a CD which people supposed not having to pay their (though of "just" taxes). The even have paid for such a CD. The stuff is stolen, but hey it's government. They can use whatever they get to put more pressure on their own citizens well this name is kindly phrased for subject. It's quite interesting, how you can get to such a brain split. Everything coming from government is good, everything else bad? Every one else knows it does not come anything good from government. You get in touch with them, you will have to pay dearly. But hey the saying is. "It's sweet to die for you country". Why don't the Deledefs do us a favor and take this sweeties?

Introducing a new? scenario

Friedrich Dominicus — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 04:58:00 GMT

Well it looks as if the diverse reserve banks like to start a degradation race. Simple and convincing idea. Well we just can out of this mess (we have encumbered) with exporting as much as we can. And well they did not say it yet, but are surely working on it. They want to raise the import barriers. They did not have learnt just the slighest things from the past. This was the road to the big world wars, and other global financial crises. How one can think that things having turned ot bad in the past suddenly start working automagically is beyond my understanding. And even if we wouldn't have had the wors or other economic crises. If there is one but one road to poverty and dead, it's hindering free trade. But well if you live in deledefs land of plenty, everything is just a wish away.....

Simple but legendary

Friedrich Dominicus — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 04:43:00 GMT

Well I do not know how many of you can associate Ludwig Erhardt with something. However a books published in 1957 and now in it's eights or so edition. Still is as actual and valid as before. The most prominent example: "Price stability should be considered a base human right" Why is that simple but legendary. Well money is the mean to freeze demands. If anyone just spends all he/she has, nothing is left for investing. So someone must have act economical sound, such that he/she can afford not to spend all one's money. Now this money is earned at a certain point in time. And in that certain point in time the money has it's "original" value. Now what happens while prices are not stable? It's simple work in the past is devalued. How? Well simple the if money looses half it's value in let's say 10 years. The original save has been betrayed. And look into the big inflations. You always will see the honest man living withing it's bounds was betrayed. And especially in Germany who was responsible for this. Well in every war people should buy bonds, but this is just to make those keen on having war more or less happy. And well because they have the guns they do not argue about it they just make a law which demands that all the money has to be put into "war bonds". Well they will be named differently probably. But it's for stealing money of worth and living the creditors with the vague hope of economic recovery. Well after war there is alway economic recovery but it's not that the governements will ever pay back their debts. They will do currency cuts, deevaluate the old debts and isssue new worthless money. As long as they have the power to play with our values that way, any hope of improvements are vain. So how does your country handle price stability? See what happens in hyperinflations. See how poor one can get if money is no longer worth anything. There is not better way to ruin any country but through ruining their money. Now 60 years later this is still a simple truth. But it's also legend.

A new round of insanity

Friedrich Dominicus — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:00:00 GMT

Ah, well somone would call it "Living in interesting times". I'd rather read it like, going to die.

The EU considers now (b)failing out Countries, our first try Greece, next stop (who knows) but it can't took that long
till it's Germany. I guess this will be the mother of all failouts. I wonder which country can affort to buy out us Germans. I don't expect the USA beeing capable of that.
No bailout has worked till now but that does not hinder politicians to try again with another trillion...

Howerver if there are laws against such things. In short it's. "No country has to guarantee for debts of another country". So yes it was "never" allowed to do so, but
they're trying hard to "revert" that. And from there on moral hazard is all there will be. Who will judge which country to bailout and which one will be allowed to fail.

The end will be poverty everywhere and with high likliness, war. It never has been different and I'm not that optimistic that this will change. After the war there will no welfare any longer
just what people will do to help another. And the buroeaucrats will linger in the background, waiting patiently to show there cruelty again...

It's depressing.