Posted by: graemebird | March 12, 2009

Poor Poor John-Stuart-Mill Watcha Gonna Do?

In this story Lyam aka Fatfingers aka some painful jerk who oughto be expelled from the LDP, came up with this idea that John Stuart Mill was crippled and deprived. Crippled and deprived, his implication not his words…. Crippled and deprived, in the view of fatfingers………..

In the view of fatfingers, John Stuart Mill was crippled and deprived, in his vision and understanding of economic science BY BEING RELATIVELY KEYNES-FREE AND UNINFORMED AS TO THE THOUGHTS OF THIS KNOW-NOTHING SODOMITE!!!!!!

Well how about THAT???? The idea that your economic VISION could be so compromised by not having been stooged by the utopian junk-science of this complete fuckwit, who only took economics classes for a few months under a very dodgy character name of Marshall.

And when it comes down to it Mill was never so deprived….if I can take all the understatement out of it. His own father before him was a great explainer of the junk crap irrationalism that is akin to, and/or forms-the-basis-of……….. KEYNESIAN BULLSHITARTISTRY.

All of Keynes’ fucking lunatic ideas were KNOWN!!!!-fallacies, by the time that John Stuart…. NAY… by the time HIS FATHER was around and about.

Well I started off explaining this to the idiot fatfingers but it aint never going to do any good.

Here is how it started, for the record.

Those of you who in fact understand economic history can queer me on this or that. But there aint no use in finishing this reply. Except to the extent that honest understanding is sought.

“The basis for the multiplier is a common fallacy amongst the economics laity. Or rather there was a common mercantilist fallacy that the Classical school economists had exploded. This fallacy, or rather this series of fallacies, plagued the minds of the 18th century cronytown types and of the common man. It was always fractional reserve, fixed exchange rates between gold and silver and coin debasement which made these wrong ideas seem plausible.

The cronytown players of the time saw their interest in restricting competition from abroad when the inevitable contractions came. Their spending would dry up simply because of the collapse in ponzi gold and silver made worse by the prior disruption to extraction industries that the selling and lending of ponzi metals would cause.

Sensing, and in the short-run narrow scope of things, quite rightly, that their problems were caused by not enough gold and silver…..

……(((((((((in that sense only that the make-believe gold and silver had disappeared and the real stuff also was still being shipped overseas…………….))))))))))

sensing that their problems were caused by not enough gold and silver………………. cronytown and the common man could be sold on the idea that retaining that gold through trade restrictions was a good thing. Hence the notion would come about that a countries wealth was based on how…….. ”

Well thats the beginning of it. And thats how it will end unless people who really want to know ask me questions straight or if the sainted Gerry Jackson were to descend to be amongst you unrisen apes, just so as to correct me on one thing or another.

The whole contention rested on feeling sorry for John Stuart Mill for being relatively economics-fallacy-deprived. Poor John. Poor Poor John. Hindered in his vision of society by his John Keynes deprivation.

As Hazlit proves utterly, Nothing that Keynes ever came up with was both NEW AND CORRECT and thats a fact that has never been successfully gainsayed…. I’m talking about formal economics when I say that, and he may well have had many original insights in such topics as focus-investing, statistics for socialist planning, a book summarising logic, and such other diverse stuff. I’m not saying that he wasn’t a sharp piece of work. He was probably the most powerfully tendentious man in history.

The problem was he just didn’t understand economics. And he has spread his non-understanding far and wide.

But nonetheless lets get into the spirit of feeling sorry for John Stuart Mill on this basis. Lets not feel sorry for John Stuart Mill being relatively PEER-DEPRIVED being as he was the most highly educated man of his generation. Let us not feel sorry for John Stuart Mill being relatively WIFE-DEPRIVED. Since I myself beat him all to hell on that score and probably beat all the rest of you hands down as well.

Lets not feel sorry for John Stuart Mill being relatively righteousness-deprived…. on account that he went from being the most fully developed economist living prior to the advent of the Austrian school…. and then betrayed his station by tendentiously promoting utopian-socialism, and by equating human liberty as being “freedom” from social norms…….

No rather lets be sorry about this SHAKESPEAREAN-LEVEL TRAGIC GIANT OF A MAN on the basis of him being relatively Keynes-deprived.

Well how are we going to express this sorrow for John Stuart Mill. We need a song-for-Mill. I’d ring up Elton right now and get him to ring Bernie, and convince Bernie to reunite with Alice Cooper and them all get together with Jim Steinman, Bert Bacharach, with Paul as executive producer………………….

But I’m angry with Elton for him lying about being bi-sexual (you’re a homo, your a homo, yes you are) and so it looks like we are going to have to take something off the shelf.

Now being as we are going to take a song off the shelf, it may be hard to get the phrasing right for our new words to fit for the tune. So clearly we need to use the occult to conjure the ghost of such phrasing experts as Ella Fitzgerald, Marvin Gaye, Bing Crosby, and/or of course that brilliant woppy gangster…… And for this occultism we need go no further than “critical rationalism”. An occult philosophy if ever there was one.

Now I’m going to choose a song for these phrasing experts, newly reincarnated, to work with.

You can do this too.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. For the record.

    In a debate about the fiscal multiplier,

    http://graemebirdforum.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/does-the-fiscal-multiplier-exist/

    I merely pointed out that it initially was developed by Ralph George Hawtrey in 1931, and that John Stuart Mill had died in 1873. Which means this gentleman couldn’t have an opinion on the subject 🙂

    YOU STUPID MORON. FOR ALL HIS MORAL FAILINGS LATER ON, THE FACT IS THAT JOHN STUART MILL WAS ONE OF THE MOST SOPHISTICATED ECONOMISTS OF HIS TIME. AND WHATEVER PROBLEMS WE MIGHT HAVE WITH HIM IT CANNOT DO ANY GOOD TO DENY HIM THIS ONE TRUE VIRTUE BY EVER MENTIONING HIM IN THE SAME SENTENCE OF A KNOW-NOTHING IDIOT LIKE MAYNARD-KEYNES.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: