Nutty aggressive woman who likes to scare elderly men on the street foresees the end of America
She lives in such a permanent state of hyperventilation, I think it would be in her (and the public's) interest if someone would volunteer to shoot a tranquilliser dart at her in the street:
The great wartime leader Winston Churchill! He was a grade one asshole. He didn't win the war. It was the scientists and engineers who designed radar and Dowding utilising that to create the first integrated air defense system. It was Dowding refusing to commit so many fighters to the European campaign. It was RJ Mitchell designing the Spitfire and Hawker building all those Hurricanes. Without those factors Britain would have lost the Battle of Britain. The terrible thing is after the battle Dowding was sacked, Churchill didn't like him.
It was Turing and that computer together with the team at Bletchley Park and stop Britain being starved into submission.
Churchill was one of the architects of Gallipoli and the Norway campaigns. Both were disasters. Churchill was prepared to abandon Australia and refused to let the troop ships return to Australia when the Pacific war broke out but Curtin told him to get stuffed because the ships had entered the Suez Canal and hence still under Australian rule. Churchill ignored warnings about a possible famine in India and 20 million died. Churchill abandoned the Malay troops when the Japanese swept through and they frantically abandoned their uniforms because otherwise they would have been shot on sight.
Stuff Churchill, he wasn't a racist he was a Britain must be saved and millions of allies can die towards that end.
The Americans will fall for sure. What do you think will be the outcome of all this Keynesian deficit spending? Will they pay down their debts to more historically sane levels and everything continue as normal? No they will experience more and more social stress and infrastructure collapse, until people start hitting back on their persecutors. They can't go on like this so they won't go on like this.
Yes and John is quite correct. Churchill was a war criminal and a complete catastrophe. He was always in hock to Jewish financiers, and that goes some ways to explaining his mindblowingly bad decision-making.
Graeme the amount of money that governments have poured into the economy is staggering and nearly all of it violates the fundamental Keynesian idea that govt spending should have a multiplier effect by eventually enhancing productivity. Instead the money has been a huge handout to maintain consumer spending and now they are terrified of inflation which is a result of those handouts. Nuts.
This is how ridiculous modern economics has become. To reduce inflation interest rates are raised. The central banks take money from the general population and give it to the banks! Governments gave all that money away to the general population and now the banks hoover it up with increased interest rates because lenders make bigger profits with rising interest rates. It's out there for all to see and I don't understand why it is being maintained by so many economists. Am I missing something?
I wouldn't put it too much down to economic thought. Its really just a bunch of lunatics looting the treasury and burning the country down.
There is this fellow who runs the goats, guns and gold podcast. Tom Luongo. He's different from Cambria in that he knows that there wouldn't be so much loot on the table for speculators if they ran good monetary policy but he wants good monetary policy anyway. Whereas Cambria must think that the money rolls into his account because of his benevolence and wisdom.
Anyway Tom, by looking at market behaviour, thinks he sees a rivalry within the deep state. He sees the Biden coup regime, Davos, and Black Rock as being one wing of the deep state who is trying to destroy the US and bring a lot of wealth back to the original oligarchs space in Western Europe. Then he sees the Federal Reserve and some of the more longstanding financiers, like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and others saying to themselves .... no thats no good, and they are trying to destroy Western Europe.
So we have this rivalrous wrecking ball going down. Which puts any chance of Nato winning any kind of war in the impossible basket. I haven't been a market watcher for many years, so I can't say "Aha, yes what Tom is saying is the truth and confirms all my suspicions" ... But he's a pretty smart guy and its clear that the incumbent bigshots really are destroying themselves/each-other or otherwise they are being destroyed by alien forces.
The answer is pretty simple. Patiently put in all your very flat cargo rail, tram-lines, wharves and canals as you can without debt, and within the most long-run time scales as you can. So you don't use big companies or debt, or have cost blowouts. Get safe versions of nuclear everywhere. Run surpluses state, federal and local. Take over the banks. Then listen to what the Prince of Leichtenstein said back in 2010.
He said "We think the loan money should go to those people who want to create jobs"
Which tells us what you don't lend for. Mortgages everywhere. Takeovers. Derivatives. Share speculation. You want to have most the money going for producer goods, wherein the buying of this producer good, may reasonably lead to extra employment. If we do that we don't have to worry about anything except for soaring labour costs, which is success.
If we do that we don't have to worry about anything except for soaring labour costs, which is success.
In Australia the exact opposite has happened with flat wages and soaring profits. So we know that the current economic paradigm is not designed to increase labour value.
Many years ago Alan Kohler made an offhand comment during his financial report on the ABC. He stated 25% of the capital value in the Australian share market was in the financial sector. That's nuts, the financial sector is there to distribute capital but has become an end in itself.
Saul Bellow once wrote that democracy might be saved if it was built for the occupant rather than the buck
Well you see the neoclassical set of policies is bifurcated in that professionals and the money power get special privileges, whereas the only people who have to face the cold winds of the free market are the worker, and the small businessman. The neoclassical boosters classify Capitalism as voluntarism in economic affairs yet they advocate a system of state supported usury.
Since a functional internal big business culture, can only come out of small business success in a competitive environment, to make the worker and the small businessman the only unprotected benighted cultural losers ....... this is setting the entire system up for failure.
Now there is another thing about trade deficits. Trade deficits come out of borrowing more than you lend overseas. Trade surpluses from the opposite. So if you are inviting foreign investment and foreign goods, at the same time as letting the bankers run wild (and ponzi up money for housing bubbles and derivatives "investments") you are going to have endless trade deficits, have a handicapped export environment, and you will set yourself up for local impoverishment.
If we had 100% backed silver currency, and zero taxes on retained earnings for sole traders .... then we wouldn't need to police the banks much. I am saying that reinvestment in your sole trader dealings is the only tax rort and here I'm not imagining some minarchist state. And supposing the main tax was land tax but with a threshold only for actual human beings.
Here there is no way to make a lot of money except through wealth creation within business. Take a lot of funds and speculate on the stock market? You have convince people to deposit silver with you on a term loan. There isn't the overblown exchequer to fund any such tulip bulb undertakings. There isn't the speculative largesse to take off the table. No instead you have to keep ploughing your efforts back into becoming more and more productive.
But if radical monetary reform is too hard YOU HAVE TO ACT. Because there will be planning. The only question is will it be the financiers or the government who do the planning. And if its the financiers then that will lead to poverty. Unless your lucky enough to have the Prince of Leichtenstein as your benevolent financier.
So neoclassical policies ALWAYS will lead to poverty, inequality and difficulty for your exporters. Its not some accident that happened once or twice. They will screw it up every time. They will screw it up for good reasons. And they don't even so much as recognise "economic rent" even when this is the item which drives virtually all deep state behaviour.
When South Korea had its five year plans it had growing wages, double digit growth and a vibrant society. Soon as they ditched this in the late 90's, and went with the neoclassical agenda, it ended up with stalled growth, ruined lives, worsening inequality, soaring suicide rates and everything we have come to expect from these schizoid free enterprise Pollyannas, who don't LISTEN when you try and talk serious economics with them.
Now its not like you want to take the planning off the bankers and give it straight to insane Keynesian central planners. But if you don't want to, or you cannot hope to get banking and land tax reform, in order to salvage the situation you have to have planning and regulation that Lee Kwan Yew would understand. Do you want Cambria running things or Lee? Because the bankers business model is to establish monopoly power so they can attach debt to it. Or to exacerbate economic rent so that they can ponzi up debt on that. And these are plans for having a few rich guys and everyone else impoverished.
Let me further lock in the difference between industrial capitalism under sound money and financier capitalism. Otherwise known as neoclassical idiocy.
You've seen me talk about how the Russians have set up the Caspian Sea for the potential for massive growth in manufacturing production. Then since this is attached to the Black Sea through their canal, you could have this manufacturing area around the Black Sea as well. Plus the energy is right there in the Caspian sea. So its kind of the perfect size for work-in-progress to criss cross backwards and forwards over the Caspian sea for that ultimate theoretical productive period.
Now imagine sicking Larry Fink from Black Rock onto the situation? First thing Black Rock would do is get all this low interest ponzi finance from their pals in the Federal Reserve, even if only indirectly. Then they will buy up all the land around the Caspian that could be used for factories. Then they will effectively have established a toll, an extra charge, a restraint to trade, over the entire area. So that the more the factory owners worked the creator would be Black Rocks cut.
You'd be better off just taking Larry out the back, shooting him, and taking all his stuff so you could get on with actual production.
So capitalism under sound money, and land tax with a threshold becomes an almost idyllic situation of fantastic production ... but capitalism under neoclassical stupidity becomes this nightmare of the rich leaching off everyone else. And unlike the Soviet nightmare its a bad dream that works well enough to go on for more than three score and ten years. So its a nightmare that we need to fight with greater ferocity then what it took to take down the Soviets. Because these evil sons of bitches may see fit to throw just enough crumbs our way to keep this cancer going on for centuries.
So that the more the factory owners worked the GREATER would be Black Rocks cut. Sounds kind of the same. Terrible typo. Two systems that seem the same but have radically different outcomes.
nutty does not describe it.
ReplyDeleteThe great wartime leader Winston Churchill! He was a grade one asshole. He didn't win the war. It was the scientists and engineers who designed radar and Dowding utilising that to create the first integrated air defense system. It was Dowding refusing to commit so many fighters to the European campaign. It was RJ Mitchell designing the Spitfire and Hawker building all those Hurricanes. Without those factors Britain would have lost the Battle of Britain. The terrible thing is after the battle Dowding was sacked, Churchill didn't like him.
ReplyDeleteIt was Turing and that computer together with the team at Bletchley Park and stop Britain being starved into submission.
Churchill was one of the architects of Gallipoli and the Norway campaigns. Both were disasters. Churchill was prepared to abandon Australia and refused to let the troop ships return to Australia when the Pacific war broke out but Curtin told him to get stuffed because the ships had entered the Suez Canal and hence still under Australian rule. Churchill ignored warnings about a possible famine in India and 20 million died. Churchill abandoned the Malay troops when the Japanese swept through and they frantically abandoned their uniforms because otherwise they would have been shot on sight.
Stuff Churchill, he wasn't a racist he was a Britain must be saved and millions of allies can die towards that end.
The Americans will fall for sure. What do you think will be the outcome of all this Keynesian deficit spending? Will they pay down their debts to more historically sane levels and everything continue as normal? No they will experience more and more social stress and infrastructure collapse, until people start hitting back on their persecutors. They can't go on like this so they won't go on like this.
ReplyDeleteYes and John is quite correct. Churchill was a war criminal and a complete catastrophe. He was always in hock to Jewish financiers, and that goes some ways to explaining his mindblowingly bad decision-making.
Graeme the amount of money that governments have poured into the economy is staggering and nearly all of it violates the fundamental Keynesian idea that govt spending should have a multiplier effect by eventually enhancing productivity. Instead the money has been a huge handout to maintain consumer spending and now they are terrified of inflation which is a result of those handouts. Nuts.
ReplyDeleteThis is how ridiculous modern economics has become. To reduce inflation interest rates are raised. The central banks take money from the general population and give it to the banks! Governments gave all that money away to the general population and now the banks hoover it up with increased interest rates because lenders make bigger profits with rising interest rates. It's out there for all to see and I don't understand why it is being maintained by so many economists. Am I missing something?
I wouldn't put it too much down to economic thought. Its really just a bunch of lunatics looting the treasury and burning the country down.
ReplyDeleteThere is this fellow who runs the goats, guns and gold podcast. Tom Luongo. He's different from Cambria in that he knows that there wouldn't be so much loot on the table for speculators if they ran good monetary policy but he wants good monetary policy anyway. Whereas Cambria must think that the money rolls into his account because of his benevolence and wisdom.
Anyway Tom, by looking at market behaviour, thinks he sees a rivalry within the deep state. He sees the Biden coup regime, Davos, and Black Rock as being one wing of the deep state who is trying to destroy the US and bring a lot of wealth back to the original oligarchs space in Western Europe. Then he sees the Federal Reserve and some of the more longstanding financiers, like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and others saying to themselves .... no thats no good, and they are trying to destroy Western Europe.
So we have this rivalrous wrecking ball going down. Which puts any chance of Nato winning any kind of war in the impossible basket. I haven't been a market watcher for many years, so I can't say "Aha, yes what Tom is saying is the truth and confirms all my suspicions" ... But he's a pretty smart guy and its clear that the incumbent bigshots really are destroying themselves/each-other or otherwise they are being destroyed by alien forces.
The answer is pretty simple. Patiently put in all your very flat cargo rail, tram-lines, wharves and canals as you can without debt, and within the most long-run time scales as you can. So you don't use big companies or debt, or have cost blowouts. Get safe versions of nuclear everywhere. Run surpluses state, federal and local. Take over the banks. Then listen to what the Prince of Leichtenstein said back in 2010.
He said "We think the loan money should go to those people who want to create jobs"
Which tells us what you don't lend for. Mortgages everywhere. Takeovers. Derivatives. Share speculation. You want to have most the money going for producer goods, wherein the buying of this producer good, may reasonably lead to extra employment. If we do that we don't have to worry about anything except for soaring labour costs, which is success.
Here is a pretty good explanation of why the US must collapse unless it goes into radical reform.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Ds1h_WMpQ
If we do that we don't have to worry about anything except for soaring labour costs, which is success.
ReplyDeleteIn Australia the exact opposite has happened with flat wages and soaring profits. So we know that the current economic paradigm is not designed to increase labour value.
Many years ago Alan Kohler made an offhand comment during his financial report on the ABC. He stated 25% of the capital value in the Australian share market was in the financial sector. That's nuts, the financial sector is there to distribute capital but has become an end in itself.
Saul Bellow once wrote that democracy might be saved if it was built for the occupant rather than the buck
Well you see the neoclassical set of policies is bifurcated in that professionals and the money power get special privileges, whereas the only people who have to face the cold winds of the free market are the worker, and the small businessman. The neoclassical boosters classify Capitalism as voluntarism in economic affairs yet they advocate a system of state supported usury.
ReplyDeleteSince a functional internal big business culture, can only come out of small business success in a competitive environment, to make the worker and the small businessman the only unprotected benighted cultural losers ....... this is setting the entire system up for failure.
Now there is another thing about trade deficits. Trade deficits come out of borrowing more than you lend overseas. Trade surpluses from the opposite. So if you are inviting foreign investment and foreign goods, at the same time as letting the bankers run wild (and ponzi up money for housing bubbles and derivatives "investments") you are going to have endless trade deficits, have a handicapped export environment, and you will set yourself up for local impoverishment.
If we had 100% backed silver currency, and zero taxes on retained earnings for sole traders .... then we wouldn't need to police the banks much. I am saying that reinvestment in your sole trader dealings is the only tax rort and here I'm not imagining some minarchist state. And supposing the main tax was land tax but with a threshold only for actual human beings.
Here there is no way to make a lot of money except through wealth creation within business. Take a lot of funds and speculate on the stock market? You have convince people to deposit silver with you on a term loan. There isn't the overblown exchequer to fund any such tulip bulb undertakings. There isn't the speculative largesse to take off the table. No instead you have to keep ploughing your efforts back into becoming more and more productive.
But if radical monetary reform is too hard YOU HAVE TO ACT. Because there will be planning. The only question is will it be the financiers or the government who do the planning. And if its the financiers then that will lead to poverty. Unless your lucky enough to have the Prince of Leichtenstein as your benevolent financier.
So neoclassical policies ALWAYS will lead to poverty, inequality and difficulty for your exporters. Its not some accident that happened once or twice. They will screw it up every time. They will screw it up for good reasons. And they don't even so much as recognise "economic rent" even when this is the item which drives virtually all deep state behaviour.
ReplyDeleteWhen South Korea had its five year plans it had growing wages, double digit growth and a vibrant society. Soon as they ditched this in the late 90's, and went with the neoclassical agenda, it ended up with stalled growth, ruined lives, worsening inequality, soaring suicide rates and everything we have come to expect from these schizoid free enterprise Pollyannas, who don't LISTEN when you try and talk serious economics with them.
Now its not like you want to take the planning off the bankers and give it straight to insane Keynesian central planners. But if you don't want to, or you cannot hope to get banking and land tax reform, in order to salvage the situation you have to have planning and regulation that Lee Kwan Yew would understand. Do you want Cambria running things or Lee? Because the bankers business model is to establish monopoly power so they can attach debt to it. Or to exacerbate economic rent so that they can ponzi up debt on that. And these are plans for having a few rich guys and everyone else impoverished.
Let me further lock in the difference between industrial capitalism under sound money and financier capitalism. Otherwise known as neoclassical idiocy.
ReplyDeleteYou've seen me talk about how the Russians have set up the Caspian Sea for the potential for massive growth in manufacturing production. Then since this is attached to the Black Sea through their canal, you could have this manufacturing area around the Black Sea as well. Plus the energy is right there in the Caspian sea. So its kind of the perfect size for work-in-progress to criss cross backwards and forwards over the Caspian sea for that ultimate theoretical productive period.
Now imagine sicking Larry Fink from Black Rock onto the situation? First thing Black Rock would do is get all this low interest ponzi finance from their pals in the Federal Reserve, even if only indirectly. Then they will buy up all the land around the Caspian that could be used for factories. Then they will effectively have established a toll, an extra charge, a restraint to trade, over the entire area. So that the more the factory owners worked the creator would be Black Rocks cut.
You'd be better off just taking Larry out the back, shooting him, and taking all his stuff so you could get on with actual production.
So capitalism under sound money, and land tax with a threshold becomes an almost idyllic situation of fantastic production ... but capitalism under neoclassical stupidity becomes this nightmare of the rich leaching off everyone else. And unlike the Soviet nightmare its a bad dream that works well enough to go on for more than three score and ten years. So its a nightmare that we need to fight with greater ferocity then what it took to take down the Soviets. Because these evil sons of bitches may see fit to throw just enough crumbs our way to keep this cancer going on for centuries.
So that the more the factory owners worked the GREATER would be Black Rocks cut. Sounds kind of the same. Terrible typo. Two systems that seem the same but have radically different outcomes.
ReplyDelete