This great piece was written by a NJ high school student. There is still hope for the future of this nation!
To the Antiwar Left
by Max Raskin
All wars are the health of the State, not simply Republican ones. Without a radical doctrine as your lodestar, the Left’s opposition to war must merely be an opposition to this war – ambiguous, tepid opposition that will sway with the capricious nature of politics. Why should the Democrats decry the war and massive increase in State power that comes along with it? Don’t they have their own wars against poverty and sickness to fight? Leftists need to embrace libertarianism and its unflinching commitment to universal principles if they ever hope to escape the morass of compromising, reactionary politics and truly stand committed to peace.
Opposition to war must go beyond current incompetence and mismanagement; it must cut to the fundamental heart of what war is. Leftists have seen the group of murdering thieves behind the current regime, so why not go one step further and recognize that by nature the State is this tool for evil and it doesn’t matter how benevolent our dictator happens to be. This is the lesson of libertarianism.
Taking the basic proposition that theft and murder are wrong, regardless of what the State says, libertarian thinkers have constructed a system of social order that is based on freedom and liberty. The nature of the State is to oppose this system, as government can only exist through a monopoly of coercion and systematic, institutionalized theft, euphemistically referred to as "taxation."
So why shy away from these conclusions to oppose war? Why not label war for what it is? A massive expansion of government power that necessarily contradicts the belief that man should be allowed to live freely.
Call the State anti–free market; war is the negation of private property. It is a massive socialist enterprise, wherein the State arrogates to itself the power to steal and inflate in order to kill innocent people. If one allows the State to exist, then war is a necessary result. When society gives any group of criminals the right to fund their Wilsonian fantasies indefinitely though a central bank, then how can you expect anything other than war?
This argument against the government’s monopoly over the printing press is a uniquely libertarian one. The history of inflation has been one of kings, despots, and democrats surreptitiously taxing the populace by printing more money and expanding credit. The first people to receive the printed money are those nepotistically chosen by the State, most notoriously defense contractors. By the time the populace realizes what has happened, their currency has already been devalued, cost of living has risen, and this causes a pronounced decrease in the standard of living. And what about those defense contractors? They’re making massive profits. Isn’t this an argument against greedy capitalists?
In reality, however, Blackwater, KBR, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin are not free market, capitalist businesses. A massive State poses a fundamental problem to the ideals of a laissez-faire economy. How can corporatism, a system where the government wraps its grubby hands around all sectors of the economy, possibly be considered handsoff? Capitalism is a system of private ownership. The Bush Administration could not oppose this more emphatically. To Bush, the supreme negator of private ownership, corporatism offers the avenue that he can use to reward his various cronies.
On the free market, destruction is destructive. There is no profit in producing bombs and bullets because the populace does not demand these things; they demand iPhones. It is only when the State subsidizes destruction that we get companies like Lockheed Martin. On the free market these companies would not survive because there is no money in the aggressive war business.
When libertarians say they want to privatize war, those of the antiwar Left should cheer them on. Private war is waged only when absolutely necessary; consumers would rather spend their money on new cars and clothing rather than on propping up foreign dictatorships and nation building. People fight only when absolutely necessary.
Furthermore, because the market will hold aggressive agencies accountable for their actions, there is an incentive to minimize damage to innocent civilians. Because the State has the sole power in society to determine what is just and unjust, there is little recourse for punishing an unjust, but powerful State. With a system of private justice, courts would be allowed to punish any agency that engaged in the murdering of non-combatants. Bush and his regime would be treated like any other band of criminal murderers.
Don’t ignore the principles of private property simply because neoconservatives of the Right have hijacked its rhetoric. Thankfully, many Democrats are learning this lesson and have begun to support Republican Ron Paul, who ran as a Libertarian in 1988. It’s not the R or D next to their names that should tell people to fear politicians, but rather the very fact that they want to tell you how to live your life.
Though Democrats profess to be antiwar, they have been behind some of the worst ones in American history. The butcher of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Harry Truman was a Democrat. Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy, architects behind the massive bloodbath of Vietnam were both Democrats. Finally, Bill Clinton, often pegged as a great statesman, was really a warmonger behind the invasion of Somalia, the sanctions against Iraq, which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, as well as the unjust war in the Balkans. While the Right and Left were behind these wars, the libertarians stood as the only defenders of peace and property.
On the typical left-right spectrum, the Right wants to wage war against foreigners, while the Left wants to wage war against the domestic populace with regulations, taxes, and intervention. In reality, the Republicans and Democrats are both for perpetual war – be it a war against drugs, poverty, or terrorism.
People do not have an aversion to libertarianism if properly explained. They have an aversion to organizations that are willy-nilly in their principles and refuse to make a stand, regardless of how many people disagree with them. Thankfully, libertarianism isn’t an alienating, but rather an ecumenical philosophy. The idea that people should be allowed to live their lives in the absence of coercion is immensely popular because of its intuitive appeal. Spell out how war and the corporate, inflationist State that necessarily follows is not consistent with private property and free markets and you’ve made a libertarian out of a Leftist.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raskin/raskin24.html
Full Version: To the Antiwar Left -- by Max Raskin
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Aug 16 2007, 10:22 PM) [snapback]322302[/snapback]
This great piece was written by a NJ high school student. There is still hope for the future of this nation!
To the Antiwar Left
by Max Raskin
All wars are the health of the State, not simply Republican ones. Without a radical doctrine as your lodestar, the Left’s opposition to war must merely be an opposition to this war – ambiguous, tepid opposition that will sway with the capricious nature of politics. Why should the Democrats decry the war and massive increase in State power that comes along with it? Don’t they have their own wars against poverty and sickness to fight? Leftists need to embrace libertarianism and its unflinching commitment to universal principles if they ever hope to escape the morass of compromising, reactionary politics and truly stand committed to peace.
Opposition to war must go beyond current incompetence and mismanagement; it must cut to the fundamental heart of what war is. Leftists have seen the group of murdering thieves behind the current regime, so why not go one step further and recognize that by nature the State is this tool for evil and it doesn’t matter how benevolent our dictator happens to be. This is the lesson of libertarianism.
Taking the basic proposition that theft and murder are wrong, regardless of what the State says, libertarian thinkers have constructed a system of social order that is based on freedom and liberty. The nature of the State is to oppose this system, as government can only exist through a monopoly of coercion and systematic, institutionalized theft, euphemistically referred to as "taxation."
So why shy away from these conclusions to oppose war? Why not label war for what it is? A massive expansion of government power that necessarily contradicts the belief that man should be allowed to live freely.
Call the State anti–free market; war is the negation of private property. It is a massive socialist enterprise, wherein the State arrogates to itself the power to steal and inflate in order to kill innocent people. If one allows the State to exist, then war is a necessary result. When society gives any group of criminals the right to fund their Wilsonian fantasies indefinitely though a central bank, then how can you expect anything other than war?
This argument against the government’s monopoly over the printing press is a uniquely libertarian one. The history of inflation has been one of kings, despots, and democrats surreptitiously taxing the populace by printing more money and expanding credit. The first people to receive the printed money are those nepotistically chosen by the State, most notoriously defense contractors. By the time the populace realizes what has happened, their currency has already been devalued, cost of living has risen, and this causes a pronounced decrease in the standard of living. And what about those defense contractors? They’re making massive profits. Isn’t this an argument against greedy capitalists?
In reality, however, Blackwater, KBR, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin are not free market, capitalist businesses. A massive State poses a fundamental problem to the ideals of a laissez-faire economy. How can corporatism, a system where the government wraps its grubby hands around all sectors of the economy, possibly be considered handsoff? Capitalism is a system of private ownership. The Bush Administration could not oppose this more emphatically. To Bush, the supreme negator of private ownership, corporatism offers the avenue that he can use to reward his various cronies.
On the free market, destruction is destructive. There is no profit in producing bombs and bullets because the populace does not demand these things; they demand iPhones. It is only when the State subsidizes destruction that we get companies like Lockheed Martin. On the free market these companies would not survive because there is no money in the aggressive war business.
When libertarians say they want to privatize war, those of the antiwar Left should cheer them on. Private war is waged only when absolutely necessary; consumers would rather spend their money on new cars and clothing rather than on propping up foreign dictatorships and nation building. People fight only when absolutely necessary.
Furthermore, because the market will hold aggressive agencies accountable for their actions, there is an incentive to minimize damage to innocent civilians. Because the State has the sole power in society to determine what is just and unjust, there is little recourse for punishing an unjust, but powerful State. With a system of private justice, courts would be allowed to punish any agency that engaged in the murdering of non-combatants. Bush and his regime would be treated like any other band of criminal murderers.
Don’t ignore the principles of private property simply because neoconservatives of the Right have hijacked its rhetoric. Thankfully, many Democrats are learning this lesson and have begun to support Republican Ron Paul, who ran as a Libertarian in 1988. It’s not the R or D next to their names that should tell people to fear politicians, but rather the very fact that they want to tell you how to live your life.
Though Democrats profess to be antiwar, they have been behind some of the worst ones in American history. The butcher of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Harry Truman was a Democrat. Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy, architects behind the massive bloodbath of Vietnam were both Democrats. Finally, Bill Clinton, often pegged as a great statesman, was really a warmonger behind the invasion of Somalia, the sanctions against Iraq, which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, as well as the unjust war in the Balkans. While the Right and Left were behind these wars, the libertarians stood as the only defenders of peace and property.
On the typical left-right spectrum, the Right wants to wage war against foreigners, while the Left wants to wage war against the domestic populace with regulations, taxes, and intervention. In reality, the Republicans and Democrats are both for perpetual war – be it a war against drugs, poverty, or terrorism.
People do not have an aversion to libertarianism if properly explained. They have an aversion to organizations that are willy-nilly in their principles and refuse to make a stand, regardless of how many people disagree with them. Thankfully, libertarianism isn’t an alienating, but rather an ecumenical philosophy. The idea that people should be allowed to live their lives in the absence of coercion is immensely popular because of its intuitive appeal. Spell out how war and the corporate, inflationist State that necessarily follows is not consistent with private property and free markets and you’ve made a libertarian out of a Leftist.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raskin/raskin24.html
With the credit markets tightening as they have been, it is going to be pretty obvious fairly soon how libertarianism doesn't work.
Before central banks, depressions were common, after central banks they have been few and far between. Unfortunately the guy in charge of the Federal Reserve is fighting the last war in terms of monetary policy, and we are tettering on deflation once again. When deflation hits, not if, because Berneke is moving too slowly, it is going to be catastrophic because of the heavy debt load in America that is encouraged by our lack of consumption taxes.
QUOTE(CFKane_ @ Aug 17 2007, 02:09 AM) [snapback]322400[/snapback]
With the credit markets tightening as they have been, it is going to be pretty obvious fairly soon how libertarianism doesn't work.
Before central banks, depressions were common, after central banks they have been few and far between. Unfortunately the guy in charge of the Federal Reserve is fighting the last war in terms of monetary policy, and we are tettering on deflation once again. When deflation hits, not if, because Berneke is moving too slowly, it is going to be catastrophic because of the heavy debt load in America that is encouraged by our lack of consumption taxes.
Actually, central banking is antithetical to libertarian economic theory. The Austrian School Of Economics has proven the inherent danger of our fiat monetary system. The Federal Reserve is the primary reason corporatism and monopoly capitalism have grown exponentially since 1913. The biggest beneficiary of government largess are transnational corporations and the military-industrial complex.
If we had listened to von Mises, Rothbard and Hazlitt, we wouldn't find ourselves in this crises. Elites depend on the State and its central banking system, in order centralize and consolidate power through their cronies in government. The FED is essentially a cartel, which has partnered up with government. We are now witnessing the historical reality of fiat currency -- it always collapses and becomes worthless as the paper its printed on. Also, if you study inflation before the Federal Reserve, it way much less than it is now, even during times of war.
Lastly, libertarianism/classic liberalism is what this country was founded on. This nation was founded by libertarians. This form of Fascism Lite is the exact opposite of libertarian philosophy.
Von Mises et al were remarkably CONFUSED with regard to money and monetary policy.
ALL money is, by its nature, 'valuable' by 'fiat'. In today's credit money environment, the 'value' of money is most certainly NOT in the hands of any 'central' bank.
Can't push on a string and all that good stuff . . .
ALL money is 'essentially' worthless. Its referent is arbitrary, and the relationship between 'it' and the referent is itself arbitrary.
ALL money is, by its nature, 'valuable' by 'fiat'. In today's credit money environment, the 'value' of money is most certainly NOT in the hands of any 'central' bank.
Can't push on a string and all that good stuff . . .
ALL money is 'essentially' worthless. Its referent is arbitrary, and the relationship between 'it' and the referent is itself arbitrary.
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Aug 17 2007, 03:53 AM) [snapback]322459[/snapback]
Von Mises et al were remarkably CONFUSED with regard to money and monetary policy.
ALL money is, by its nature, 'valuable' by 'fiat'. In today's credit money environment, the 'value' of money is most certainly NOT in the hands of any 'central' bank.
Can't push on a string and all that good stuff . . .
ALL money is 'essentially' worthless. Its referent is arbitrary, and the relationship between 'it' and the referent is itself arbitrary.
I see where your coming from. Von Mises historically demonstrated the abject failure of these fiat currencies. For example, the US dollar has no intrinsic value whatsoever, its value exits in the ideasphere. More specifically, our current system is based on faith in the debt instruments(dollars) as being used as a method of exchange. Once confidence in the US dollar weakens, like now, we can see just how fragile the system has always been. The US had the privilege of being the world's petrocurrency and reserve currency. It is much more complicated than this, but we are discussing only one facet of this scheme. The whole system is based on the monetization of debt. Gold and silver have always been a store of value during times of inflation. Value is a subjective thing, and since time immemorial people throughout the world have attributed value to gold/silver. In my opinion, the US will experience serious stagflation in the near future.
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Aug 17 2007, 02:24 AM) [snapback]322412[/snapback]
Actually, central banking is antithetical to libertarian economic theory. The Austrian School Of Economics has proven the inherent danger of our fiat monetary system. The Federal Reserve is the primary reason corporatism and monopoly capitalism have grown exponentially since 1913. The biggest beneficiary of government largess are transnational corporations and the military-industrial complex.
If we had listened to von Mises, Rothbard and Hazlitt, we wouldn't find ourselves in this crises. Elites depend on the State and its central banking system, in order centralize and consolidate power through their cronies in government. The FED is essentially a cartel, which has partnered up with government. We are now witnessing the historical reality of fiat currency -- it always collapses and becomes worthless as the paper its printed on. Also, if you study inflation before the Federal Reserve, it way much less than it is now, even during times of war.
Lastly, libertarianism/classic liberalism is what this country was founded on. This nation was founded by libertarians. This form of Fascism Lite is the exact opposite of libertarian philosophy.
The last time the Fed made a mistake as big as the one it is making today, deflation not inflation was the problem.
You will soon see just how valuable a dollar can become. When deflation strikes commodities will keep getting cheaper and cheaper as the value of the dollar rises.
The credit market is already impacting the value of commodities. They are becoming cheaper because dollars are becoming more valuable. That is the essence of deflation.
The market can't correct itself in situations like this, which is why government intervention in the form of a Central Bank has proven so beneficial over the long run.
The problem today is that people with Hooveritis, fear of government intervention into the market are controlling both the White House and the Fed. Bush doesn't have a clue about economics beyond blind faith in Supply Side which is only at best a quarter of the equation. Consumption has been unordinarily high because we don't have a tax policy to discourage overconsumption, and inflation has also encouraged consumption as opposed to saving. The Japanese had a tax policy that encouraged too much saving which is also bad, and that resulted in an essentially deflationary period in Japan for most of the 1990s. The problem was that following the Dot Com crash, the second punch of 9/11 had us tettering on the verge of deflation, which meant we needed to flood the market with dollars to prevent the worse of two evils from visiting the economy. Greenspan did the right thing. The problem is that since taking the helm, Berneke hasn't really made a single correct move. The disintegration of the subprime market for mortgages needs the intervention of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to end the liquidity crisis. The fact that Bush won't fix the market's problem means that monetary policy is the only tool to fix the problem, and it is too little too late now.
Read John Kenneth Galbraith's "The Great Crash: 1929." The similarities are startling. The ineptitude of the people at the helm is mind boggling. The problem of course is that Berneke is a student of the crash. He did his thesis on it and is one of the foremost experts on monetary policy's impact on the Great Depression. These mistakes are clearly on purpose.
Why?
Because trade agreements and other necessary elements are in place to make the dismantling of the American middle class complete. This means that the consolidation of wealth is going to grow exponentially in the next decade.
do you think we will default on the world bank?
that was my prediction last year (no timetable)
I think bush has no scruples there and that it could easily happen.
that was my prediction last year (no timetable)
I think bush has no scruples there and that it could easily happen.
QUOTE(inyerface @ Aug 17 2007, 05:00 AM) [snapback]322472[/snapback]
do you think we will default on the world bank?
that was my prediction last year (no timetable)
I think bush has no scruples there and that it could easily happen.
I think Berneke's failure to act when for at least 6 months it has been clear we are tettering on the edge of deflation, means that all bets are off as to what we will or won't be doing.
I'm very concerned about Bush's daughter announcing a wedding. I don't expect a White House wedding. I expect a wedding in Crawford Texas on the morning of January 20, 2009, right before the swearing in takes place for whoever the next President is, and I fully expect a big bang happening in DC while Bush is safely away.
I have a sneaking suspicion that with Bush out of town, and everybody else in town for the Inauguration that somebody who hasn't been sworn out will have a scheme to retain power.
I do not trust this man as far as I can throw him. I have no reason to believe that there is an ounce of honor, integrity, or truth in either him, or any of his appointees. I believe he is the Anti-Christ personally.
as I said in 2000:
"What will he do when the people want their government back?"
"What will he do when the people want their government back?"
QUOTE(CFKane_ @ Aug 17 2007, 04:50 AM) [snapback]322469[/snapback]
The last time the Fed made a mistake as big as the one it is making today, [b]deflation not inflation was the problem.
You will soon see just how valuable a dollar can become. When deflation strikes commodities will keep getting cheaper and cheaper as the value of the dollar rises.
The credit market is already impacting the value of commodities. They are becoming cheaper because dollars are becoming more valuable. That is the essence of deflation.
The market can't correct itself in situations like this, which is why government intervention in the form of a Central Bank has proven so beneficial over the long run.
The problem today is that people with Hooveritis, fear of government intervention into the market are controlling both the White House and the Fed. Bush doesn't have a clue about economics beyond blind faith in Supply Side which is only at best a quarter of the equation. Consumption has been unordinarily high because we don't have a tax policy to discourage overconsumption, and inflation has also encouraged consumption as opposed to saving. The Japanese had a tax policy that encouraged too much saving which is also bad, and that resulted in an essentially deflationary period in Japan for most of the 1990s. The problem was that following the Dot Com crash, the second punch of 9/11 had us tettering on the verge of deflation, which meant we needed to flood the market with dollars to prevent the worse of two evils from visiting the economy. Greenspan did the right thing. The problem is that since taking the helm, Berneke hasn't really made a single correct move. The disintegration of the subprime market for mortgages needs the intervention of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to end the liquidity crisis. The fact that Bush won't fix the market's problem means that monetary policy is the only tool to fix the problem, and it is too little too late now.
Read John Kenneth Galbraith's "The Great Crash: 1929." The similarities are startling. The ineptitude of the people at the helm is mind boggling. The problem of course is that Berneke is a student of the crash. He did his thesis on it and is one of the foremost experts on monetary policy's impact on the Great Depression. These mistakes are clearly on purpose.
Why?
Because trade agreements and other necessary elements are in place to make the dismantling of the American middle class complete. This means that the consolidation of wealth is going to grow exponentially in the next decade.
Both Hoover and FDR prolonged the Great Depression through their ridiculous hyperinterventionist polices. The Great Depression was used in order to justify a massive expansion of the State, and this can be seen once you really study New Deal policies. Government involvement in the market has always compounded problems. As a matter of fact, Murray Rothbard wrote volumes about interventionist economic policies. He empirically proves that one intervention in the market leads to another and another etc... This has a cascading effect, not in the aggregate, but in the long term health of an economy. It also enables the growth of corporatism and government largess.
Excerpt:
QUOTE
The parallels between the Hoover and current Bush-Greenspan policies are remarkable:
Hoover inflated credit and bullied banks into inflating.
Signed the Agricultural Marketing Act to subsidize farming.
Pursued a "high-wage" policy, including corporate pledges to avoid cuts in wage rates and signed the Norris-LaGuardia Anti-injunction Act to empower labor unions.
Cut taxes heavily.
Pushed federal expenditures up by 42 percent in one year (!), driving the burden of total government up from 16.4 percent in 1930 to 21.5 percent of the gross private product.
Deliberately ran a huge deficit.
Started more major public works in four years than in the previous thirty.
Attacked the stock exchanges and urged the public to "invest on the basis of the future of the United States" rather than judging stocks according to earnings.
Signed the punitive Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Lost the confidence of foreigners in the dollar, who began to pull out their gold.
After four years, the result of Hoover's "frenzied interventionism," was there for all to see: utter ruin, a ruin "unprecedented in length and intensity" (Rothbard, p. 295). At least he didn't resort to a shooting war. And what did our leaders in Washington, DC, learn? Hoover bragged: "We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever involved in the history of the Republic." Rexford Tugwell, one of FDR's "impudent nobodies," finally conceded in an interview forty years after the event (1974): 'We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover had started."
We know how counterproductive these interventions are. "Whenever government intervenes in the market, it aggravates rather than settles the problems it has set out to solve," remarks Murray Rothbard (p. 204). "This is a general economic law of government intervention." Rothbard concludes his book on America's Great Depression: "Bravely [Hoover] used every modern economic 'tool,' every device of progressive and 'enlightened' economics, every facet of government planning, to combat the depression. For the first time, laissez-faire was boldly thrown overboard and every governmental weapon thrown into the breach."
At least Hoover had to refute a then-respectable, rival laissez-faire theory of the "reactionary liquidationists." Today, reputable economists on Wall Street and inside the beltway do not advocate laissez-faire as the right corrective, though their economic understanding is hardly more respectable than that of the "monetary cranks."
What they know in Washington is "smart politics." Policies consist of happy talk, reassurance that all is well, it's all under government control, and extravagant use of the Hoover-FDR tools. "All governments are firmly committed to the policy of low interest rates, credit expansion, and inflation," wrote Ludwig von Mises. "When the unavoidable aftermath of these short-term policies appears, they know only of one remedy—to go on in inflationary ventures." But explaining this tragic situation goes beyond the direct policymakers. Two additional groups outside of Washington, D.C., deserve mention too: economists and the public.
First, economists have treated monetary problems in a superficial way, failing to integrate money into their theory of markets. They naively embraced the neutral theory of money, failing to appreciate how monetary manipulation necessarily distorts markets and causes booms followed by corrective busts.
Hence, Benjamin Strong, governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank in the 1920s, could say ignorantly and without guilt, "I will give a little shot of whiskey to the Stock Market," just as our revered Dr. Alan Greenspan ("Sureprintsalot") or Larry Kudlow can today. No misunderstanding in economic science has done more harm than the role of money and credit in business boom and bust.
Second, the myopic public disposition for lower interest rates by allegedly costless credit expansion creates an irresistible temptation for politicians, bureaucrats and economists to comply. H.L. Mencken's theory of democracy surely applies all-too-well here: the public gets what it wants, good and hard.
Hoover inflated credit and bullied banks into inflating.
Signed the Agricultural Marketing Act to subsidize farming.
Pursued a "high-wage" policy, including corporate pledges to avoid cuts in wage rates and signed the Norris-LaGuardia Anti-injunction Act to empower labor unions.
Cut taxes heavily.
Pushed federal expenditures up by 42 percent in one year (!), driving the burden of total government up from 16.4 percent in 1930 to 21.5 percent of the gross private product.
Deliberately ran a huge deficit.
Started more major public works in four years than in the previous thirty.
Attacked the stock exchanges and urged the public to "invest on the basis of the future of the United States" rather than judging stocks according to earnings.
Signed the punitive Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
Lost the confidence of foreigners in the dollar, who began to pull out their gold.
After four years, the result of Hoover's "frenzied interventionism," was there for all to see: utter ruin, a ruin "unprecedented in length and intensity" (Rothbard, p. 295). At least he didn't resort to a shooting war. And what did our leaders in Washington, DC, learn? Hoover bragged: "We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever involved in the history of the Republic." Rexford Tugwell, one of FDR's "impudent nobodies," finally conceded in an interview forty years after the event (1974): 'We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover had started."
We know how counterproductive these interventions are. "Whenever government intervenes in the market, it aggravates rather than settles the problems it has set out to solve," remarks Murray Rothbard (p. 204). "This is a general economic law of government intervention." Rothbard concludes his book on America's Great Depression: "Bravely [Hoover] used every modern economic 'tool,' every device of progressive and 'enlightened' economics, every facet of government planning, to combat the depression. For the first time, laissez-faire was boldly thrown overboard and every governmental weapon thrown into the breach."
At least Hoover had to refute a then-respectable, rival laissez-faire theory of the "reactionary liquidationists." Today, reputable economists on Wall Street and inside the beltway do not advocate laissez-faire as the right corrective, though their economic understanding is hardly more respectable than that of the "monetary cranks."
What they know in Washington is "smart politics." Policies consist of happy talk, reassurance that all is well, it's all under government control, and extravagant use of the Hoover-FDR tools. "All governments are firmly committed to the policy of low interest rates, credit expansion, and inflation," wrote Ludwig von Mises. "When the unavoidable aftermath of these short-term policies appears, they know only of one remedy—to go on in inflationary ventures." But explaining this tragic situation goes beyond the direct policymakers. Two additional groups outside of Washington, D.C., deserve mention too: economists and the public.
First, economists have treated monetary problems in a superficial way, failing to integrate money into their theory of markets. They naively embraced the neutral theory of money, failing to appreciate how monetary manipulation necessarily distorts markets and causes booms followed by corrective busts.
Hence, Benjamin Strong, governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank in the 1920s, could say ignorantly and without guilt, "I will give a little shot of whiskey to the Stock Market," just as our revered Dr. Alan Greenspan ("Sureprintsalot") or Larry Kudlow can today. No misunderstanding in economic science has done more harm than the role of money and credit in business boom and bust.
Second, the myopic public disposition for lower interest rates by allegedly costless credit expansion creates an irresistible temptation for politicians, bureaucrats and economists to comply. H.L. Mencken's theory of democracy surely applies all-too-well here: the public gets what it wants, good and hard.
http://www.mises.org/story/1367
In regards to commodities, I see it a little differently. Gold, as we speak, is being artificially suppressed by the international banking houses. I could see Gold hitting 2,000$/oz if the dollar continues its decline. Personally, I liquidated all my stocks one year ago, and I own a significant amount of gold and silver.
There is nothing federal about the Federal Reserve, nor does it have any reserves. Its a cartel -- a partnership between the member banks and the government. Techincally, its not even a constitutional entity, but its a convienient way for politicians to expand government, with no regard for the future consequences of such actions. The Federal Reserve actually engineered the Great Depression by massively contracting the money suppy. I actually fell off my chair when Ben Bernake admitted this, because I have been researching the FED and the history of international banking for quite some time. This enabled a massive consolidation of wealth, and the Elite were able to buy everything up for pennies on the dollar.
I will definitely check out the book you recommended. For a great book on the history of the FED and monetary policy, I suggest you pick up a copy of The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin.
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Aug 17 2007, 11:36 AM) [snapback]322550[/snapback]
In regards to commodities, I see it a little differently. Gold, as we speak, is being artificially surpressed by the international banking houses. I could see Gold hitting 2,000$/oz if the dollars continues its decline. Personally, I liquidated all my stocks one year ago, and I own a significant amount of gold and silver.
So how do they do that?
Surpress the price of gold, I mean?
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Aug 17 2007, 04:44 PM) [snapback]322553[/snapback]
So how do they do that?
Surpress the price of gold, I mean?
I would start here:
http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_02/murphy013002.html
It looks like once again the US is running the world through conspiracies. Good job USA.
conspiracy:
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy
QUOTE(beasty @ Aug 17 2007, 05:09 PM) [snapback]322562[/snapback]
It looks like once again the US is running the world through conspiracies. Good job USA.
They must be really good, because they are artificially supressing agriculutural products and oil too.
The problem is that the fundamentals of the economy are such that there is only one way this thing can go and anybody who has studied their history saw where it was headed a decade ago.
QUOTE(beasty @ Aug 17 2007, 05:09 PM) [snapback]322562[/snapback]
It looks like once again the US is running the world through conspiracies. Good job USA.
Once again, I am are not talking about Americans or the US. These people are internationalists, and simply see the US as a means to an end.
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Aug 17 2007, 11:49 AM) [snapback]322554[/snapback]
Color me skeptical.
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Aug 17 2007, 10:24 AM) [snapback]322568[/snapback]
Once again, I am are not talking about Americans or the US. These people are internationalists, and simply see the US as a means to an end.
Yes, it's a smaller world than that 1776 world you want to return to. It's a recurring theme in your posts that American internationalists are somehow ruining things while you make little or no mention at all of "internationalists" from the communist, Islamist, socialist or other spheres.
QUOTE(beasty @ Aug 17 2007, 05:59 PM) [snapback]322578[/snapback]
Yes, it's a smaller world than that 1776 world you want to return to. It's a recurring theme in your posts that American internationalists are somehow ruining things while you make little or no mention at all of "internationalists" from the communist, Islamist, socialist or other spheres.
I don't want to return to 1776. I believe in US sovereignty, and the principles this nation was founded on.
Actually, a good portion of these individuals operate out of the City of London and Wall Street. I would term this group of globalists the Anglo-American Establishment. However, in terms of Communism, who funded the Bolsheviks? It was the West. The whole Cold War was formulated through the Hegelian Dialectic, in my opinion. Why the hell would Jacob Schiff support the Bolsheviks with his own money? Why would a capitalist do this? Even during the Cold War, very wealthy industrialists and financiers did business with the Soviets. Why? Why was Standard Oil doing business with the Soviet Union?
The same holds true for these Islamic regimes. Why does the US subsidize Pakistan, Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia? For these people, it's business. The quicker you understand this, the more you can analyze geo-political events and certain policies.
Most of this has been documented by historians and can be found in the historical record. Anthony Sutton, Hoover Institute economist and historian, wrote volumes about the Soviet Union, and how they were funded by the West, including technology transfers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton
If you really enjoy reading, pick up Tragedy and Hope by Prof. Carroll Quigley. He was a professor of history and political science at Georgetown University, and one Bill Clinton's early mentors.
QUOTE
There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known. (p. 950}
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. {p. 1247}
The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.
The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. {p. 1247}
The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.
The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.
-- Tragedy and Hope
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Aug 17 2007, 05:26 PM) [snapback]322569[/snapback]
Color me skeptical.
I actually discovered this through Bill O'Reilly of all people. I remember he used to write about this years ago. I am sure you can find some of his articles with Google.
Gosh, the Brits wanted to get rid of him? I wonder why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
On 28 April 1951 the Majlis named Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, and with the assassination of Prime Minister Ali Razmara in March, the young Shah appointed Mossadegh to the Premiership. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the nationalization of Iran’s oil, cancellation of the AIOC’s oil concession due to expire in 1993 and expropriation of the AIOC's assets.
Nationalize? Expropriate?
Steal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
On 28 April 1951 the Majlis named Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, and with the assassination of Prime Minister Ali Razmara in March, the young Shah appointed Mossadegh to the Premiership. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the nationalization of Iran’s oil, cancellation of the AIOC’s oil concession due to expire in 1993 and expropriation of the AIOC's assets.
QUOTE
Responding to the latter, the British government announced it would not allow Mossadegh's government to export any oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. A de facto blockade by Great Britain, enforced by threat of legal action was established in the Persian Gulf to prevent any attempts by Iran to ship oil out of the country. Furthermore, the AIOC withdrew its British trained technicians when Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry. Thus, many of the refineries lacked properly trained technicians that were needed to continue production. An economic stalemate thus ensued, with Mossadegh's government refusing to allow any British involvement in Iran's oil industry, and Britain refusing to allow any oil to leave Iran.
Mosaddeq on the cover of TIME in January 1952Since Britain had long been Iran's primary oil-consumer and producer, the stalemate was particularly hard on Iran. While the country had once boasted over a 100 million dollars a year in exports to Britain, after nationalization, the same oil industry began increasing Iran's debt by nearly 120 million dollars a year. The Abadan Crisis quickly plunged the country into economic difficulties.
Despite the economic hardships of his policy, Mossadegh remained popular, and in 1952 was approved by parliament for a second term. Sensing the difficulties of a worsening political and economic climate, he announced that he would ask the Shah to grant him emergency powers. Thus, during the royal approval of his new cabinet, Mossadegh insisted on the constitutional prerogative of the prime minister to name a Minister of War and the Chief of Staff. The Shah refused, and Mossadegh announced his resignation.
Mosaddeq on the cover of TIME in January 1952Since Britain had long been Iran's primary oil-consumer and producer, the stalemate was particularly hard on Iran. While the country had once boasted over a 100 million dollars a year in exports to Britain, after nationalization, the same oil industry began increasing Iran's debt by nearly 120 million dollars a year. The Abadan Crisis quickly plunged the country into economic difficulties.
Despite the economic hardships of his policy, Mossadegh remained popular, and in 1952 was approved by parliament for a second term. Sensing the difficulties of a worsening political and economic climate, he announced that he would ask the Shah to grant him emergency powers. Thus, during the royal approval of his new cabinet, Mossadegh insisted on the constitutional prerogative of the prime minister to name a Minister of War and the Chief of Staff. The Shah refused, and Mossadegh announced his resignation.
Nationalize? Expropriate?
Steal?
QUOTE(beasty @ Aug 17 2007, 07:25 PM) [snapback]322591[/snapback]
Gosh, the Brits wanted to get rid of him? I wonder why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
On 28 April 1951 the Majlis named Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, and with the assassination of Prime Minister Ali Razmara in March, the young Shah appointed Mossadegh to the Premiership. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the nationalization of Iran’s oil, cancellation of the AIOC’s oil concession due to expire in 1993 and expropriation of the AIOC's assets.
Nationalize? Expropriate?
Steal?
This isn't the right thread, is it? Oh well...
I posted some detailed information about Operation Ajax in antother thread.
Here: http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com/index.php...st&p=322582
The Majlis nationalized the oil fields before Mossadegh was appointed Prime Minister. He tried to renegotiate the ridiculous 1%-2% the AIOC was giving the Iranians. I think he wanted 20%, so they could use the revenues for Iranian infrastructure. He supported nationalization of Iran's oil, because he no longer wanted Iran to be a British petroleum colony. Although I don't agree with nationalization, I understand why the Iranians did it. Mossadegh wanted an idependent, sovereign Iran, not some puppet regime existing at the behest of Big Oil.
beasty, when did I say that the English ought to have liked Mossadegh?
Is this defense of the English on your part somehow related to their role in creating a homeland for worldwide Jewry in that particular part of the defunct and defeated Ottoman Empire known as the Palestinian Mandate?
So, the British did not steal Iranian oil, they bargained fairly and squarely with its rightful previous owners, etc., right?
The British were perfectly entitled to remove all their personnel from Iran and to seek compensation for the value of their investments in Iraq. OTOH, eminent domain expropriation of private property over land with minerals was the right of the Iranian government.
The Shah was a puppet before Mossadegh and after Mossadegh. Defending the Shah, to me, is the lowest of the low.
Is this defense of the English on your part somehow related to their role in creating a homeland for worldwide Jewry in that particular part of the defunct and defeated Ottoman Empire known as the Palestinian Mandate?
So, the British did not steal Iranian oil, they bargained fairly and squarely with its rightful previous owners, etc., right?
The British were perfectly entitled to remove all their personnel from Iran and to seek compensation for the value of their investments in Iraq. OTOH, eminent domain expropriation of private property over land with minerals was the right of the Iranian government.
The Shah was a puppet before Mossadegh and after Mossadegh. Defending the Shah, to me, is the lowest of the low.
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Aug 17 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]322595[/snapback]
This isn't the right thread, is it? Oh well...
I posted some detailed information about Operation Ajax in antother thread.
Here: http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com/index.php...st&p=322582
The Majlis nationalized the oil fields before Mossadegh was appointed Prime Minister. He tried to renegotiate the ridiculous 1%-2% the AIOC was giving the Iranians. I think he wanted 20%, so they could use the revenues for Iranian infrastructure. He supported nationalization of Iran's oil, because he no longer wanted Iran to be a British petroleum colony. Although I don't agree with nationalization, I understand why the Iranians did it. Mossadegh wanted an idependent, sovereign Iran, not some puppet regime existing at the behest of Big Oil.
Between this thread and the Iraq thread you make the point it's all a CIA plot, and I'm pointing out there's more to it than that. I don't blame the Iranians for wanting to take over the oil operations and profits, but if you look around at the Muslim states they haven't done real well looking after their own oil.
You act as if Mossadegh was some anti-communist ally and the CIA took him out anyway. It's not so simple as that.
QUOTE(beasty @ Aug 17 2007, 10:57 PM) [snapback]322627[/snapback]
Between this thread and the Iraq thread you make the point it's all a CIA plot, and I'm pointing out there's more to it than that. I don't blame the Iranians for wanting to take over the oil operations and profits, but if you look around at the Muslim states they haven't done real well looking after their own oil.
It wasn't all a CIA plot, MI6 was an equal partner in the destabilization effort. This is a fairly simple equation to understand. Every time an Arab or Persian secular, nationalist rises to power, a very strong effort is made to destabilize the country, and install a puppet regime. It all boils down to geo-political strategy, which in turn is directly controlled by Big Oil and Wall Street. At the end of the day, the US has no right to be involved in the internal affairs of any nation. Also, the same can be said of other countries trying to influence or getting involved in the internal affairs of the US. Could you imagine if Russia or China tried to pull the same stunt? How would you feel? How would all Americans feel?
QUOTE
You act as if Mossadegh was some anti-communist ally and the CIA took him out anyway. It's not so simple as that.
The interventionist foreign policy of the US, which is controlled by the special interests, destabilized a sovereign nation. MI6/CIA installed a puppet regime through acts of false flag terrorism in Iran, for the benefit of AIOC. This is fairly simple to see, if you make a concerted effort to study the available documentation. I am not saying Mossadegh was some rabid anti-communist, but he did kick them out of Iran.
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Aug 17 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]322633[/snapback]
At the end of the day, the US has no right to be involved in the internal affairs of any nation
You might as well have started there. The fact is our enemies are and were involved in the internal affairs of other nations, and when that happens we'll get involved too. ( I know you hate "we", but you can exlude yourself and the rabid left you like)
talkin rabid?
because they do it WE can?
because they do it WE can?
QUOTE
the US has no right to be involved in the internal affairs of any nation
Can, must. I understand in your world the enemy is just evil bloodthirsty right-wingers. Maybe when somebody rapes one of your kids you will find something worth fighting for. Obviuosly your country isn't enough.
I have ZERO respect for your lazy approach to thinking, replying and trying to inject yourself into any ongoing discussion.
That's on top of your whiney leftwing bleating and appeasement.
At least TT is open about wanting freedom to make more money regardless of who is doing what to the rest of the world.
I have ZERO respect for your lazy approach to thinking, replying and trying to inject yourself into any ongoing discussion.
That's on top of your whiney leftwing bleating and appeasement.
At least TT is open about wanting freedom to make more money regardless of who is doing what to the rest of the world.
let me return the same respect you've always given me
so you killed for American freedom, eh?
so you killed for American freedom, eh?
QUOTE(beasty @ Aug 17 2007, 11:23 PM) [snapback]322635[/snapback]
You might as well have started there. The fact is our enemies are and were involved in the internal affairs of other nations, and when that happens we'll get involved too. ( I know you hate "we", but you can exlude yourself and the rabid left you like)
First of all, I am a conservative, in the traditional sense. The GOP is so far to the left, I am surprised at the partisan bickering these days. The GOP is now the party of big government, entitlements, nation building and open borders.
Yeah.. I am a leftist...
I believe in limited government, the US Constitution, free markets, secure borders, no nation building, and I loathe the welfare-warfare state. I also happen to think the IRS and FED should be abolished.
Yeah.... I am a real bleeding heart.
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Aug 17 2007, 07:43 PM) [snapback]322647[/snapback]
Yeah.. I am a leftist...
Nah. I am, though, and proud of it. I am also proud of being an American.
QUOTE
I believe in limited government, the US Constitution, free markets, secure borders, no nation building,
I agree.
QUOTE
and I loathe the welfare-warfare state. I also happen to think the IRS and FED should be abolished.
Well, no I do not agree...entirely.
QUOTE
Yeah.... I am a real bleeding heart.
I'd wager you would be for the right 'cause.'
You obviously have a heart.At any rate, I think it's absurd that first Katz, and now beasty, are attempting to paint you as 'some kind of lefty.'
My God, you probably are actually closer to the 'middle' than I am, and CERTAINLY far moreso then they are.
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Aug 17 2007, 04:43 PM) [snapback]322647[/snapback]
First of all, I am a conservative, in the traditional sense. The GOP is so far to the left, I am surprised at the partisan bickering these days. The GOP is now the party of big government, entitlements, nation building and open borders.
Yeah.. I am a leftist...
I believe in limited government, the US Constitution, free markets, secure borders, no nation building, and I loathe the welfare-warfare state. I also happen to think the IRS and FED should be abolished.
Yeah.... I am a real bleeding heart.
No, you AND the leftists. They don't agree with you on much, but foreign policy wise you are all peas in a pod.
QUOTE(beasty @ Aug 17 2007, 11:54 PM) [snapback]322650[/snapback]
No, you AND the leftists. They don't agree with you on much, but foreign policy wise you are all peas in a pod.
Nope...
The policy of the Old Right was always based on a foreign policy of non-interventionism. It was also the advice of the Founding Fathers; we should have trade, commerce, and diplomacy with all nations, and entangling alliances with none. Senator Taft didn't even want the US to participate in NATO. I believe in a strong national defense as well, but this current manifestation of military adventurism will severely weaken the US. This whole policy started with Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House. The Neoconservative philosophy of preemtive war, perpetual warfare and militarism is NOT a conservative doctrine. The Old Right was vehemently opposed to this type of dangerous foreign policy.
Should I sell my stash of Russian gold rubles?
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Aug 17 2007, 05:04 PM) [snapback]322660[/snapback]
Nope...
The policy of the Old Right was always based on a foreign policy of non-interventionism. It was also the advice of the Founding Fathers; we should have trade, commerce, and diplomacy with all nations, and entangling alliances with none. Senator Taft didn't even want the US to participate in NATO. I believe in a strong national defense as well, but this current manifestation of military adventurism will severely weaken the US. This whole policy started with Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House. The Neoconservative philosophy of preemtive war, perpetual warfare and militarism is NOT a conservative doctrine. The Old Right was vehemently opposed to this type of dangerous foreign policy.
Well I'm not talking about "old" anything. I know a "conservative" is someone that just sits and thinks, mostly just sits, but the world we could afford to do that in is long gone.
The world is in a state of perpetual war. You can try and ignore it, but I can't and won't.
live by the sword....
QUOTE(beasty @ Aug 18 2007, 12:46 AM) [snapback]322693[/snapback]
Well I'm not talking about "old" anything. I know a "conservative" is someone that just sits and thinks, mostly just sits, but the world we could afford to do that in is long gone.
The world is in a state of perpetual war. You can try and ignore it, but I can't and won't.
Ah no...
GOP Kool Aid drinkers have been sold a beautiful piece of sophisticated propaganda. How can you buy into this Neoconservative, Orwellian concept of perpetual war? You are so emotionally invested in this phony left/right paradigm, that you feel compelled to justify the actions of these mentally disturbed individuals.
QUOTE
I know a "conservative" is someone that just sits and thinks, mostly just sits,
??
perpetual war, by definition, can produce no winners... just death.
You have chosen to ignore all posts from: inyerface.
Doesn't this guy ever shut up?
Doesn't this guy ever shut up?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.