Current Events

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

Clayton — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 20:25:32 GMT

There are a large number of virtues that can be named - kindness, friendliness, diligence, nurturing, forethought, frugality, etc. etc. My contention is that the martial virtues (discipline, physical fitness, punctuality, persistence, energy, ambition, etc. etc.) are assigned the highest seat in modern American culture to the marginalization of other virtues. In fact, if someone is more sensitive than punctual, we consider such a person to be "irresponsible" on net. This bias towards the martial virtues leads to a general beating down of virtuous people who simply exhibit virtues other than the martial virtues. What we really need, instead, are the positive contributions of all virtuous people to our culture and life.

Clayton -

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

DanielMuff — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 20:10:22 GMT

Wait, so what are the virtues and which ones are elevated?

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

Clayton — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:30:49 GMT

I am curious, What does everyone think the most important virtue or psychological trait is with regard to gaining, keeping, and accumulating power?

Please note I provided no ranking of the virtues. Personally, I think we need the lot of them and a big part of the problem with the encroaching, global cultural monolith is precisely that it elevates a very small number of virtues to the be-all-end-all of human virtue. In the process, only people exhibiting these virtues can achieve material success in life and so all the other (absolutely essential) virtues end up being marginalized and neglected and society devolves into this hyper-sterilized, hyper-jackbooted, hyper-anal-retentive culture created in the image and likeness of the Pentagon.

Clayton -

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

Anarcho-libertarian — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:00:37 GMT

Autolykos:

It gives credence to my suspicion that TPTB essentially follow the Austrian school of economics without being public about it. Why would they do this? If you've seen the movie Apocalypto, do you remember the solar-eclipse scene? The king, queen, and high priests at the top of the sacrificial pyramid knew what was really going on, but the masses at the bottom had no idea. The high priest proceeded to lie to the masses about what was going on, and the masses ate it up. Exploiting such an extreme asymmetry of information can apparently be very profitable. Most people, however, won't try to persist such exploitation by deceit or worse unless 1) they believe they have strong incentives to do so, and/or 2) they're psychopaths.

Professor Jason Jewell at the LibertyClassroom.com forums was asked why people worshipped the pharaohs and whether it was because they had special knowledge with which they were able to fool the people. He responded:

"The pharaoh, backed by the priests, did have some tricks up his sleeve. Some Egyptian temples had sophisticated ways of measuring the water levels in the Nile and could 'predict' the annual floods before anyone else noticed the changes in the levels. Priests typically were the only people who were literate."

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

Merlin — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:40:07 GMT

Do such alleged externalities include a direct destruction of the physical property of third parties? I don’t think so. Nobody owes me a ‘solid’ monetary system.

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

dalai — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 09:06:52 GMT

Fractional reserve creates negative externalities. The third parties are not free in this case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KmlSxvwqbo

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

Merlin — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:57:09 GMT

If refusing to force free parties into fashioning a banking deal according to your, as opposed to their, wishes - i.e. refusing to ‘outlaw’ fractional reserve banking - is conducting controlled opposition, than I myself am a proud controlled opposition guy.

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

acft — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 04:55:35 GMT

Clayton said :
"The government can spy and terrorize all it likes but it damn well better think twice before shutting off the porn."

I think this got Santorum into trouble. Very stupid move to try to censor porn.

"I think that the ruling elite actually have certain virtues that most people lack and that these virtues are partly responsible (in combination with dumb luck) for their present status. In particular, the virtues I have in mind are a zeal for life, a strong sense of family/kin loyalty, low time preference, high discipline, consistency and so on -"

I am curious, What does everyone think the most important virtue or psychological trait is with regard to gaining, keeping, and accumulating power?

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

Aristippus — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:24:11 GMT

I really can't understand why brilliant people (like Peter Schiff) claim that fractional reserve is up to the market...I think the reason is obvious, AE is another controlled opposition.

What? Murray Rothbard, one of the most important members of the Austrian School, was hugely opposed to fractional reserve banking and wanted it outlawed in a free society. What happened to the 'controlled opposition' of the Austrian School during the decades in which Rothbard was the leader of the Austrian School? Or are you saying that AE is only controlled opposition in more recent times? Well, Ron Paul - the most prominent Austrian public figure - believes that fractional reserve banking is fraudulent and follows Rothbard in calling for its illegality!! Jörg Guido Hülsmann and Jesus Huerta de Soto also oppose fractional reserve banking, among many others.

As I recall Mises and Hayek believed that, on the free market, fractional reserve banking would be greatly limited by the supply and demand for banknotes (which would most likely have commodity backing).

Why are people like Peter Schiff talking always about all the moral hazards of social security (which is true to the core) but seldom mention the 100+ US military bases all around the world and how this is not only financed by American tax payers, but everyone who are forced into buying dollars; and these two parts of the budget are not even comparable in size and morality?

Firstly, Peter Schiff does talk about the cost of the military bases and doesn't always talk about social security. He likely emphasises the costs of 'Social Security' because it is such a sacred cow of politics and few realise that it's a ponzi scheme. As for the budget comparison, the unfunded liabilities of SS amount to around $9 trillion. The yearly budget of the entire US military - not only the foreign bases you are talking about - is $550 billion. It seems then that the enormous costs of SS greatly dwarf those of the foreign bases, and few realise how costly it is compared to those who oppose the existence of costly foreign military bases. For that reason it is even more pressing for people like Schiff to emphasise the problems of SS.

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

dalai — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 23:57:02 GMT

On time preference...

Underconsumption and postponing consumption are the means to gain capital, not to benefit from capital. The benefit should only come from the utilization of that capital and bearing risk in the operation. The only way to get a return from a capital investment (in Islam) is becoming a partner/stockholder.

a. This eliminates the possibility of making money by lending capital for consumption, therefore eliminating the market for consumption based loans, which would have been very beneficial for the current situation if it had been utilized before. "Inflate and force them to borrow" scheme becomes impossible. A moral hazard gone.

b. You can no longer bet against/short the very investments that you lent to, in order to bankrupt those investments to get access to the collateral at a very low liquidation price, first hand. Another moral hazard gone.

c. Just because you made money at some point in time can't supply you with a definite income when the only way to gain from capital is being a partner/stockholder in a company or a distinct business operation. Another moral hazard gone.

d. The point of no return that I mentioned in the above post becomes an impossiblity with Islamic economics. Raising interest rates, they say, is the only way to restructure; but after the point of return (which most countries have passed) "the only way to structure" (raising interest) also makes sure that the restructuring is impossible. This is more visible with the concept of "compounded interest". (USA is already bankrupt and is attached to an intensive care unit, waiting for its death. When the only way to get cured is to make sure that you are dead, means that you are already dead. There wont be a revival of USA after they do the "right thing". USA is done for.

Islamic economics is superior to AE.

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

dalai — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 22:50:48 GMT

If you are informed about the Hegelian dialectics and how two poles of an opposition are controlled for "total control" (a remedy, aka the synthesis, ordo ab chao), this wouldn't shock you. You also have to realize that without an active opposition to fractional reserve banking and interest, free markets are never free.

I really can't understand why brilliant people (like Peter Schiff) claim that fractional reserve is up to the market to decide and do not acknowledge the externalities this creates. Applies to almost all so called free market economists. This is the only mises.org piece I can find on this issue and nothing else. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KmlSxvwqbo

I think the reason is obvious, AE is another controlled opposition. I'll try to elaborate.

Why are people like Peter Schiff talking always about all the moral hazards of social security (which is true to the core) but seldom mention the 100+ US military bases all around the world and how this is not only financed by American tax payers, but everyone who are forced into buying dollars; and these two parts of the budget are not even comparable in size and morality?

Blaming people for borrowing money, spending beyond their means and abusing social security is very easy. How about all the inflation that is created via fractional reserve -which is an externality that falls into the category of theft more than fraud- and people being forced into borrowing? How can fractional reserve be an issue of debate among "libertarians" including Mises and Hayek, but not something that is established as "wrong" just like price fixing is "wrong"?

How can these apparently brilliant economists dismiss people like Alan Greenspan as incompetent and plain stupid, but don't mention how it is impossible for all this not to be a "setup?"

Austrian economics is not the answer to the problems we have, it is (one of) the diametrical opposite(s).

Lending money on interest ,selling risk and time are immoral. I am not saying that there is no price to capital, I consider myself a Muslim, therefore I am pro-free market; and as a business owner, I am aware of all the pains that come with creating capital (underconsumption, borrowing etc). Of course capital has a price.

Of course capital deserves a return which should be determined via market forces, but this is true up to the point that you bear risk in that operation. Risk free gains (lending on interest is exactly that, I don't buy that lenders have risk with a fixed interest) are immoral and haraam. This causes people to be immune from becoming poor, and hinder the access of poor people getting rich. Besides, with this (Islamic) approach, making money by lending for consumption is impermissible, thus most of the problems we live today are impossible to occur.

How is raising interest rates going to help people after a point of no return which USA has already passed? Yes, fixed interest rate kind of lending has a point of no return, that the only way out is slavery. I think this is self evident, but if you disagree or don't get my point, I can explain.

Insurance is haraam, because one's gain is another's loss without exception. Gain with a definite loss is the whole point of insurance, not a probability. A legitimate business transaction at least aims, or let's say, starts with an intention of mutual benefit (you get the good you want, I make money). The problem with the insurance system is not that it is public, and that it should be left to the private market, but the concept itself is immoral. So selling risk is haraam.

Fractional reserve is obviously as haraam as paper money itself is haraam.

The concept of pure human greed restraining each other to create a fair and free society is just far fetched. I am not saying that aiming a better life and providing services while pursuing this aim is immoral. This is one of the fundamental mechanics of a society and wealth creation and anyone who disagrees with this mechanics and whines about the "greed of capitalists" is an idiot and can wage his next war against gravity and arithmetic. But saying that law and defense can and should be privatized is plain fantasy, which in my humble opinion, inconsistent with formal logic and utterly inapplicable.

These are the issues which Islam and AE have different views on. Otherwise we are very similar with regards to economics and politics. But I think these are also the very issues which explain why Rockefeller would want to fund AE as a diametrical opposite that only propagates as a controlled opposition, which has never been or can ever be a true alternative.

Even Wicksell-Hayek structure of production model is mentioned in the Quran

“Those who devour usury will not stand except as stand one whom the Evil one by his touch hath driven to madness. That is because they say: “Trade is like usury,” but God hath permitted trade and forbidden usury. Those who after receiving direction from their Lord, desist, shall be pardoned for the past; their case is for God (to judge); but those who repeat (the offence) are companions of the Fire: They will abide therein (for ever).”
- Quran Verse 2:275 (Chapter Al-Baqara)

Thanks for reading, I've been waiting for this for a long time.

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

Minarchist — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:13:12 GMT

I like the Apocalypto reference, too... that was a very powerful scene, deeply illustrative of the true nature of power.

Indeed, I'm always referencing that. Funny considering Gibson is such a hardcore Catholic - guess it's only those other religions that are used for control.

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

Clayton — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:17:06 GMT

Porn is neither here nor there in my view. Of course it's natural. Nevertheless, there's a lot more to it than just people looking at naked pictures of other people - in particular, money, manipulation (guilt, dirt) and cultural degradation due to the widespread lowering of standards of decency. I'm more offended by the cover of Cosmopolitan or an explicit Superbowl ad than I am by a hardcore porn website... you have to make an effort to view the latter, the former is thrust in your face and the faces of your children and everybody in the world whether you like it or not.

Clayton -

Re: WTF Rockefeller funded Mises?

Autolykos — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:58:04 GMT

Clayton:
Three letters, baby: V P N

Indeed. I'll throw out three more letters: P G P

Clayton:
Actually, they've really let the genie out of the bottle this time - they can't even throw the Internet kill-switch except in the event of WW3, literally. Why? Well, very simply, the public is hooked on the porn that TPTB peddle and distribute. The US/UK/EU public would pull a Samson and bring the entire socio-political structure crashing to the ground if any of these governments ever tried to throw a kill-switch over some riots or whatever. The government can spy and terrorize all it likes but it damn well better think twice before shutting off the porn.

Oh, I agree - if all internet technology were shut down, I think we'd already have much bigger issues to worry about.

If you ask me, though, I don't think people are hooked on porn due to TPTB. I think humans as a species are just obsessed with sex to begin with. Some of our closest animal relatives are like this, too. (Chimpanzees are also promiscuous, but not quite to the extent that bonobos are.)