Posted by: graemebird | July 11, 2010

Even Inspired Legislation Must Be Sunsetted/Theory Of Cascading Labour

“Similarly, Humboldt introduced the practice whereby high school teachers in Germany must have a degree to teach thus directly linking schools to universities and also popularised the ideal of scholarship based on original research.”

See this is one of those measures that may have gotten of burst of good results at first but causes more and more trouble later on. I used to tutor friends and good looking girls in economics, and sometimes other subjects for free. I had the ability to step out of university and conduct tafe classes on economics at the age of 19. If price competition was still a viable thing in the labor market, I could have offered to do so for very little, and thereby help in bringing the cost of education down. By not falling into the “proletarian masses” (for want of a better description) after leaving Corporate Finance…….. I therefore would not have been doing my bit to depress entry level wages at the bottom end of the market.

((((You see how much intervention unwittingly depresses bottom end wages, and keeps people unemployed. I’ve termed this the “theory of cascading labour” ….. but the idea I got off Reisman. A properly run Capitalist society is not the rabidly unequal deal you would see it to be. Its not how the left would have it. Nor how those faux-libertarians posers at Catallaxy would imagine it either. Its this skewed version of capitalism we have that is the problem. ))))))

Now while I would have been teaching economics that was somewhat better than standard Keynesian bullshitartistry even then, at 19, my economics would not be as fully real-world-integrated as it is now. So I wouldn’t have been quite as sound as I am now. But I certainly would have been better than most of the other teachers.

This is how interventionism is Philomena. It usually starts like crap and continues to increase in the damage it does. But even brilliantly conceived interventionism, like that which you are describing here, will eventually reach decrepitude, start imposing hard-to-quantify costs. And now, more then a century on, has produced a monstrous education system. Monstrous in terms of costs. Monstrous in terms of teaching the kids many things that are just not so. I have great confidence in the teaching of Chemistry. And mathematics…..

(((((although in practice, to succeed at mathematics… most people tend to need a very gifted teacher. But at least I can be confident that even the less good teachers aren’t teaching utter bullshit)))….

…. I can have almost no confidence in the teaching of other subjects although you might name a few that I could agree on.

For economics you would have had to have the great good fortune of winding up at Pepperdine university and accidentally taking all of George Reismans papers in order to understand economics properly. George Mason has a good faculty. Or you might have just wandered off the street in Alabama and ran into the Mises Institute. Otherwise you would be taught a load of rubbish, and it may have taken you ten or fifteen years to recover if you ever did.

For Ancient History you would have to have been very lucky and ran into Victor Davis Hanson, sometime before 2001, when he started to spread himself a bit thinly. Or you would have had to just have happened upon Don Kagan as your lecturer.

Now the education system is so unsound you simply have to have dumb luck to choose the right teacher. And even then its not value-for-money, because the fees have gotten outrageously high. But the fees would be a lot lower under free enterprise, and particularly if people like me could just walk off the street, become an apprentice lecturer, and undercut everyone else on price.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Now boys and girls gather around. This is NOT!!!! me apologizing for losing my bananas from time to time. This is only me explaining why any short-run break between me and the Catholic philosopher is not to be interpreted along the lines as the break between me and that wop bank-communist vanilla goth house-nigger Cambria.

    Whereas Cambria needs to crawl across broken glass weeping not from physical pain, but in penitence, to get back in my good books………

    …. All CL has to do is to show that he’s not going to misrepresent me as letting the NAZIS off the hook morally …. And to occasionally show he is with the good guys.

    Now I will find scraps of evidence that he is still with the good guys. And this is bigger than me and my presumed friend CL. This is a live issue. See how the borders of the countries have stayed almost the same since the end of WWII?

    This is not in the way of things. The Europeans got a two-century jump on the others, and thereafter …. at least after WWII ….. the US emerged so powerful that the map borders stopped moving around.

    We need to accept reason, humanity and righteousness from here on in. Because to Middle powers like ourselves war (WAR!!!!!!) will become a live issue.

    Is CL still Righteous? Is CL still deserving of my respect? I make no apologies for blowing my top now and again. But here I will present evidence for the affirmative. And Philomena. I don’t ask much. And I don’t ask often. But I want you to at least TRY to bury the hatchet.

    EXHIBIT A, CL SEZ:

    Bird, what are you talking about? Your gravitar hero, McCarthy, was a Catholic (who was right) just like Santamaria. We bow to no-one when it comes to hating the communist filth. We were the ones who organised the most serious assassination attempts on the one-balled corporal.

    YEAH? YEAH? YEAH? RIGHTEOUS MAN? RIGHTEOUS? YES OR NO?

    That was exhibit one (ONE) for the affirmative.

  2. We bow to no-one when it comes to hating the communist filth.

    You do bow to those poor misunderstood SS officers…

    • Why do you say that? As usual you are talking shit!!! What are you saying? That anyone should morally support his own death-on-the-spot, when confronted with the overwhelming force of murderous socialist bully-boys?

      That what your point is?

  3. EXHIBIT B

    “McCarthy was certainly right about Soviet infiltration of the US government. This is historical fact and anyone who denies it is delusional.”

  4. EXHIBIT C

    Dot, the Allies used incendiary clusters, magnesium and white phosphorus bombs, and napalm, to incinerate Japanese cities – not to retaliate for US cities so incinerated by the Japs, but simply for strategic and psychological reasons.

    It was far worse than the Nazi blitz on London (death toll: 16,000), killing about 500,000 people. For this, Curtis LeMay probably should have been tried and executed. But winners are grinners.”

    I may have commuted the sentence of LeMay to ten years hard labour. On the grounds that he was bitterly opposed to the nuclear bomb drops. In other words while he wrongly thought that war crimes were Okay when the outcome was not foreordained, at least he was human enough to oppose the mass murder, once it was known who the victor would be.

    You see that Philomena? You’ve got to bite your tongue a little bit where people I have some respect for are concerned. This is a live issue. This aint ancient history. Not even a little bit.

  5. site deity sez: Tillman Tillman Tillman Tillman Tillman (said five ways) …… What is your MAIN problem?

  6. Mr B

    Hi it’s Ron here.

    Did you see this?

    Someone is finally willing to take on the Gravity Mafia.

    I expect an unexplained brake failure leading to a Mysterious Fatal Accident.

    Some questions are not meant to be asked!!!!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?hp

  7. Here is an appropriate picture to remember that evil bastard Roosevelt by:

    http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=5814

    Imagine what it was like for the injured survivors? Those crispy critters you see there may not look much to you. But some of them are undoubtedly little Japanese girls. This was lunacy. And to think that so many people are still in the grips of great admiration for the idiot Roosevelt. Makes one wish to horse-whip Bahnisch for having Roosevelt as his Gravatar. Bahnisch ought to be put in the stocks so small children can throw rotten fruit at him.

    You know its all big fans of Roosevelt that have visited this fiscal insanity on us!!!! These are the sort of ignorant dummies who think that Roosevelt and World War II “got us out of the depression.” This is what the stupid metric of GDP does for you. Saddles you with horrid vicious and atrocious lies like that.

    Just in passing we ought to note that the first bombing raid made by the Americans was the Doolittle raid. It did little to end the war. But the Japanese were so pissed off about it they murdered 250 000 Chinese in retaliation.

    This issue of mass-murder, versus “comprehensive just war” is not a line ball call. Its not a small fuckup to get it wrong and go the Roosevelt way. This is not one of these issues where there is a little right and wrong on both sides.

  8. One of the worst things we could do would be to piece up with hydrogen bombs but have very little in the way of stealth precision bombers, laser missile defense, excellent submarines to intercept foreign naval arrangements and so forth. Since this would put us in the position of being tempted to act like the lunatic Roosevelt. We ought to see to it that we have all the metal storm applications. Particularly “active defense” and we ought to make sure we are some sort of world leader in laser and directed energy weaponry.

    We do need nuclear weapons. But really only for the situation where a foreign power is massing their assets at sea. Like for an Inchon-Style landing or some such thing. In that situation several nuclear weapons are essential. But we have to invest now so no knucklehead in charge will be tempted to wage war in the sickening way that Roosevelt did.

  9. Look at this. The pro-war-crime crowd is so badly whipped they have taken up lying as their only out:

    “Graeme Bird is a devout apologist for Mc Carthy, who wanted the German Market Garden war criminals pardoned.”

    Its an historical fact that McCarthy was right, knew who the communists were, and cleared a lot of them out of sensitive positions. But take the second statement!!! I’ve never once advocated that the German war criminals be let off the hook. The idea was to hang the most culpable and then put an end to the vengeance and violence. Also note the incoherence of the lie. Market Garden War Criminals?

    You see they’ve lost so badly at Catallaxy they’ve gone loopy.

  10. Graeme
    Joe McCarthy wanted Nazi war criminals pardoned. what do you say about that?

    I’D SAY YOU WERE LYING. I’D SAY ALSO THAT THE KILLING HAS TO STOP SOMEWHERE. I’D SAY THAT THE AMERICAN LEADERSHIP WAS NOT COMPETENT TO MAKE JUDGEMENTS ON KILLING ANYONE BEYOND THE TOP RANKED CRIMINALS, SINCE OF COURSE THE AMERICAN LEADERSHIP WERE WAR CRIMINALS THEMSELVES. SO THE IDEA WAS TO HANG THE HIGHEST RANKED CRIMINALS AND THEN END THE BLOODSHED. SO IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT MCCARTHY WAS OF THE SAME OPINION THEN SO WHAT? WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

  11. THERE IS TO BE NO LYING ON THIS SITE. I’VE NEVER ONCE CLAIMED THAT THE SS WERE OUR NATURAL ALLIES. OBVIOUSLY REFUGEES FROM STALINS SOVIET UNION WERE OUR NATURAL ALLIES.

  12. Hi Mr B
    It’s ron here

    don’t listen to the Jew

  13. He’s a Gook. Not a Jew. See how the pro-war-crimes side of the argument cannot get any traction at all without lying. Particularly now that Michael Fisk and Currency Lad have reminded people where they stand on these issues.

  14. OH RIGHT. SO YOU ARE BACK TO YOUR INCREDIBLE GENOCIDAL ANTI-COSSACK STANCE WHICH YOU’VE NEVER EXPLAINED. AND YOU ARE ALSO BACK TO THE IDEA THAT IF THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN REFUGEES AND ONE EX-SS FELLOW IN A BUILDING THE IDEA IS TO BLOW UP THE BUILDING

    I CANNOT MAKE ANY SENSE OF YOUR PRO-GENOCIDE ARGUMENT AT ALL JASON. I DONT KNOW WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO MURDER COSSACKS AND SMALL CHILDREN JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TO SHARE THE SAME TOILET FACILITIES WITH AN EX-SS MAN. I SIMPLY CANNOT MAKE SENSE OF YOUR ARGUMENT BECAUSE YOUR ARGUMENT IS SENSELESS.

    YES ITS TRUE THAT THE COSSACKS WERE OUR NATURAL ALLIES. WE OUGHT TO HAVE COUNTED ALL NON-RUSSIAN REFUGEES FROM THE SOVIET UNION AS POTENTIAL ALLIES.

  15. http://www.ukrcdn.com/2009/05/09/the-last-secret-of-ww2-operation-keehaul-betrayal-of-the-cossacks-in-lienz/

    ONCE AGAIN ITS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE SENSE OF YOUR ARGUMENT. YOU ARE SAYING THAT IF YOU SHARE THE SAME CONCENTRATION CAMP WITH A WAR CRIMINAL, THEN YOU TOO ARE TAINTED. THE WAR ENDS AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO LOCK UP OUR FIREARMS AND STOP THE KILLING. ONCE SOMEONE SURRENDERS THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SAFE OR THEY WOULD NOT SURRENDER. WE HAD WAR CRIMES TRIALS? DID YOU KNOW THAT? SO WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? YOU HANG THE WORST OF THE LEADERSHIP AND THEN THE KILLING MUST STOP. FOR THE NORMAL SOLDIER YOU DEMAND HIS RIFLE. HE’S INTERNED FOR SOME TIME, BUT HE’S SUPPOSED TO BE BASICALLY SAFE. I KNOW THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT A SAVAGE GOOK WOULD UNDERSTAND BUT THIS IS HOW CIVILISATION IS MEANT TO WORK.

  16. the Brit troops were so appalled at what the Cossack SS did that they went along with Keelhaul. you’re dishonest in whitewashing the Cossack SS

  17. we should have shot every Taliban in the head even after they surrendered. our mistake.

  18. Graeme, support for genocide is the default position of “libertarians” like Jason Soon, Mark Hill, Doverbeach. It is implicit in their ideology, as is support for eugenics, total war, imperialism, social Darwinist economic policy and all forms of racism, xenophobia, and misogyny.

    • But to me you see its their lack of libertarianism. I cannot so much speak for dover on this one. Because after he was soundly thrashed in debate he’s gone sort of quiet on the topic, and will only put a potshot in when he can. But Mark Hill and Jason are far from libertarian. Marks a lunatic and Jason doesn’t know what it means to be a civilised human being.

  19. Can someone explain the difference between barbaric and civilised behavior to this stupid Gook? Its the basics that he cannot seem to get under his belt.

    So that wars aren’t as devastatingly bloody as they could be, and are, if we are smart, negotiated to end with a lasting peace ……. well the idea for all but the most culpable leadership ….. the idea for the individual soldier is that all he has to do to be safe is to raise a white flag and then hand over his rifle.

    From the moment he hands over his rifle he is supposed to be safe. And he is supposed to be able to sit out the war in reasonable conditions. Any enlightened country will obviously take this attitude towards the enemy solider.

    Now this is done under a sacred trust. If you then go and murder this now defenseless soldier you have betrayed that trust. Only barbarism and murder can come out of the betrayal of that sacred trust.

    This is why only the most proven culpable war criminals ought to be hung. Its only civilised behavior to be lenient on all the others. Because they have handed over their weapons.

    I don’t really believe this Gook is ever going to understand this. But you know. You try and explain the basics just the same.

  20. WHAT IS THIS GENOCIDAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS COSSACK PEOPLES ALL ABOUT? THEY SURRENDERED DIDN’T THEY? SO THEY AND THEIR KIDS ARE MEANT TO BE SAFE.

  21. Oh and Joe Cambria of course. Sick fucks one and all.

  22. “From the moment he hands over his rifle he is supposed to be safe. And he is supposed to be able to sit out the war in reasonable conditions. Any enlightened country will obviously take this attitude towards the enemy solider.”

    Indeed. In retrospect Napoleon and the Jacobins lived in a comparative Golden Age in which even revolutionaries and dictators had their scruples and actually believed that other people, even opponents possess more or less inalienable rights, including the right to life and free speech.

    In the 20th century, even in a supposed beacon of democratic hope such as the US we witnessed a revival of slavery, torture, imprisonment without trial, forced political orthodoxy, and savage persecution by the state of heretical opinion.

    And the atomic bombs dropped by the US on two Japanese cities, when the Japanese leadership had already signalled its intention to surrender, was the epitome of captialist inhumanity.

  23. THERE IS NO LYING ALLOWED ON THIS BLOG SOON. YOU KNOW THAT. MILLIONS OF ALLIED TROOPS DIED BECAUSE OF OUR USELESS LEADERSHIP. THATS THE FACT OF THE MATTER. REAGAN, WELLINGTON AND NELSON SHOWED US HOW IT WAS MEANT TO BE DONE. NOT A GREAT MANY BRITS DIED BRINGING NAPOLEAN DOWN. NOT VERY MANY AMERICANS DIED UNDER REAGAN, BUT THE SOVIET UNION FELL JUST THE SAME.

  24. My idea in “Comprehensive Just War” is to develop the best shock troops but in theory to hardly ever use them. The main thing is to make any forward bases totally unassailable and then arm people who are putupon by the enemy. Supposing the enemy somehow makes friends with the locals and treats them well? Well you probably won’t have a lot of people that its worth funneling arms too.

    Look at the huge territories that the Soviets, Germans, Japanese and Italians had gobbled up. Strengthening ones bases and navy would mean that there would be endless pressure points of people who were intimidated by close-by occupying forces. Or refugees from occupied territory. The Japanese, Germans and Soviets would have faced the wrath of newly armed people on all their fronts, and really pissed off refugees who wanted to take their homes back.

    No objections could be put up to this policy of arming all these disaffected people, since instead of sinking British whoop-ass into the field, the British, under this policy, would have built up their whoop-ass to the point where they could conduct ubiquitous proxy war with impunity.

    The effect would be that the murderous regimes would have to change their basic nature or die. And should one tyrant attack another then its easy street the rest of the way.

    People getting weaponry from conducting this sort of “Comprehensive Just War” would know that they could not go on sprees of murder and rape without the aid dropping away to a trickle. So the basic nature of the war would change, without all that slaughter.

    The way we conducted war had an effect on the way the others conducted war even in a negative sense. Since had we done things the right way the occupying forces would have to scramble to not so piss off their charges as to make them feel there was no course for them but to accept British money and weapons and get to fighting.

  25. Lord Action sez: “Nationality does not aim either at liberty or prosperity, both of which it sacrifices to the imperative necessity of making the nation the mould and measure of the state. Its course will be marked with material as well as moral ruin.”

    Real libertarians – such as myself – have a critique of nationalism. It’s a litmus test.

    Preparation for war and war itself, as WW2 clearly showed, are things which a highly centralised government finds very useful for its own totalitarian purposes.

    And Acton’s prophecy is still in the process of terrible fulfilment. Nationalism is the modern idolatrous religion. The world is parcelled out in in many cases completely arbitrary units.

    Nationalism inevitably leads to conflict and war and moral ruin because it denies universality, denies the value of human beings, affirms exclusiveness, stimulates hatred and proclaims the necessity of and rightness of war.

    • Yeah well I suppose thats all true. But its a bit of a poser. Because internationalism is even worse. And as expensive as wars are to prepare for, they are yet more costly to lose. I don’t really have an answer to this problem except to bias in most cases to smaller and smaller political territories. The goal is hyper-federalism, cantonisation, and secession where appropriate. That we are wise to prepare for wars, so as not to have to fight them, in no way invalidates the quotes you have made above. Its a real dilemma alright. Its not a conundrum that leads itself to easy answers.

  26. Here’s some statistics of total losses to the British fighting forces during the period 1804-1815. Now note that the only net figure we have (net of disease) is the rather optimistic figure of 25,569.

    Thats pretty much the totality of direct deaths that Napoleons armies inflicted on the British army. Here we don’t have the navy breakdown of deaths through disease versus French navy successes.

    But the French navy didn’t have all that much success against the British in all of that time.

    It may seem a little bit rich to not count the soldiers who fell to nasty skungy diseases. But I’m doing so here to make a point.

    11 years fighting by more just and moral means then was used in World War II. The British unambiguously win that war. Emerge from it stronger than before, becoming the first great industrial power. And we get almost a century of civilization.

    Same goes for Reagans just war. Although he had those CIA numbskulls to work with, who did some pretty horrible things down South. Still not that many died on his watch, and particularly not that many Americans. We had the pre-existing problem of runaway debt and all unbacked currencies are doomed. So the US will go the way of the Soviet Union.

    But be that as it may, because of Reagan following what I would call “Comprehensive Just War” He wins, kills relatively few people doing so, and particularly few Americans, and his country emerges more powerful then it was before.

    Of course thats all history now and the US is busily scuttling itself. But the point I’m making is the absolute superiority of the way Nelson, Wellington and Reagan conducted themselves over the way Churchill and the utter lunatic Roosevelt conducted themselves.

    Do things the other way and the savagery just never seems to end.

    British army, 1804-15:
    killed in action: 25,569
    disease: 193,851
    total: 219,420
    Navy and army: 311,806

  27. Nelson Wellington and Reagan didn’t have to fight a bunch of Panzer armies NEITHER DID CHURCHILL. THATS THE WHOLE DAMN POINT.

    REAGAN HAD MAYBE 7000 NUKES POINTED AT HIM. BONAPARTE STARTED OFF VIRTUALLY INVINCIBLE IN THE FIELD. I CANNOT GET YOUR POINT BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE A POINT.

  28. Phil

    Millions of brave allied soldiers died BECAUSE OF FUCKING INCOMPETENT STRATEGY. THAT IS A FACT OF HISTORY. NO LYING ON THIS SITE YOU STUPID GOOK.

  29. I find it interesting that the pro-war crimes crowd are now openly baying for the destruction of the Geneva Convention, in advocating the mass execution of all disarmed POWs, on the basis that some of them were SS. This sets an astonishing precedent – for exactly the same reason, any and all American soldiers captured by the Japanese could have been summarily executed, using the mass incineration of Japanese cities (admitted by Robert McNamara to be a war crime) as an excuse, regardless of which individual actually released the bombs. And as Australia was an ally of the US at the time, the forced enslavement of 13,000 Aussie boys to work on the Burma railway was also justified.

    See where this kind of reasoning gets you? This is what happens when you excuse barbarism on some partisan whim.

  30. NO LYING. IF YOU CANNOT WIN THE ARGUMENT WITHOUT LYING WHAT IS THIS TELLING YOU?

  31. YOU ARE JUST BEING A COMPLETE WANKER BECAUSE YOU’VE LOST THE ARGUMENT. YOU DON’T KNOW HOW FEMININE SHE IS IN PERSON.

  32. “I find it interesting that the pro-war crimes crowd are now openly baying for the destruction of the Geneva Convention……..”

    Crazy isn’t it? I cannot get any reasoning at all out of Jason. Not on the treatment of soldiers who have done the right thing and laid down their arms. And not on military strategy.

    Its as if he thinks that the Germans could have attacked London with a Panzer division. Those things don’t float Jason. You did know that tanks don’t float didn’t you? You cannot cross the English channel with a tank.

    As a matter of fact the strategy that Britain actually took, was the only one that could have even POSSIBLY lead to German tanks rolling into London.

  33. Umm we didn’t execute anyone in Keelhaul.

    WE MURDERED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. DON’T GIVE US THAT BULLSHIT.

  34. Graeme

    I’m not the other fellow. that’s probably Tillman

  35. Well thank goodness for that. I thought you were cracking up rather than just a logic-deprived congenital thug. You do realise the implication of what you are saying don’t you?

    By your own advocacy, should the time come when we get in a scrap with the Chinese, and should we begin to identify the Chinese with war criminal behavior …… by your logic we’d be within our rights to round you and your sister up and kill you both.

    Whereas to my way of thinking you would be a lucky fellow. You’d get to sit the war out, and the only requirement would be, that because of your appearance, you could not carry your weaponry downtown. You’d maybe have to have your weapons locked up in the house. Anyone who looked Chinese carrying a rifle would probably be shot immediately. But aside from that one admittedly harsh putupon you would be sweet. Actually safer than the rest of us.

  36. no stop lying and tainting our soliders as war criminals

    our boys didn’t kill any of the keelhaul refugees

    WE KILLED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. JUST AS SURELY AS IF WE HAD GRABBED ANNE FRANK AND GIFT-WRAPPED HER, POSTAGE PAID, FOR AUSCHWITZ.

  37. No, Genghis, we deported them to the Soviet Union, in which the chances of execution were very high. Basically, we were running the tumbrils up to the scaffold. For some reason, you seem to think that this means we weren’t complicit in executing large numbers of people.

    By the way, if Keelhaul involved nothing more than handing over a bunch of SS war criminals (which it didn’t – it including large numbers of ordinary soldiers along with civilians), then why do you think the Allies actually tried to hide this operation from the public?

  38. Graeme

    “Lead us not into temptation”.

    As all experience proves whenever temptations to “evil” are sufficiently strong and frequent human beings will succumb to them. The existence of powerful armaments such as that owned by the US today constitutes for their owners a standing temptation to resort to violence.

    And when science and technology is used constantly to improve the means of destruction, the temptation to aggression, in the name of defence of national interests, partisan economic interests, manifest destiny or whatever the justification will always intensify until at some critical moment it turns into an irrestible categorical imperative to go to war.

    The development of weapons that can be used to destroy indiscriminately from great distance have only boosted the temptation to ignore the traditional rules of war and obliterate wholesale civilian populations and their dwellings. To this temptation all the belligerents in WW2 succumbed and we saw it in Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq and in Afghanistan, carried out by the US.

    The notion that the development of more efficient instruments of slaughter will make war too expensive in lives, suffering and money to be worth waging has been refuted in practice.

    Wars are still being fought and being prepared for. Advances in technology will never abolish war, only modify its manifestations.

    The nation state and the division of the world into competing economic and social units is at the basis of the drive to war. This is a libertarian position. My position.

    • I think you are right for some of the weaponry. Many of the nuclear weapons, if used, would automatically constitute a war crime. There are some applications for lower-yield nukes wherein its very hard to see how you could get by without them.

      For my mind I don’t like the idea of sending our lads out in a submarine without nukes. Since its just an underwater coffin. Water is a great shock absorber, and our job is to send our lads home to Mum.

  39. OK, thanks for clarifying your position, Genghis. I guess if the British had extradited Salman Rushdie to Iran in 1989, that wouldn’t have made them complicit in his execution.

    Got it.

  40. Good example Michael. If we here in Australia had rounded up all our Jews and sent them to Auschwitz, that would be like a mini-Keelhaul. We would be murdering every last one of them, as we did with Keelhaul.

    Its a more sickening crime then the holocaust, since the war was over, and from a military standpoint Keelhaul was as counterproductive as Hitlers war of extermination. As opposed to a war of conquest and good treatment, which he stood some chance of winning.

  41. That is why Reagan was one of the greatest all time Presidents. He was excellent at showing he meant business while at the same time keeping the lads at home.

    • Precisely. Its really sad that his good management is now being pissed away by others. It looks now like he ought to have not procrastinated on the gold standard, but the intellectual ammunition just wasn’t there at the time.

      Actually he had a harder situation to handle then any commander in history. No-one else has had that sort of firepower aimed right at them. Almost no-one else thought he could win. But comprehensive just war works. It either defeats the enemy or changes its basic nature.

  42. If we had sent Rushdie to Iran we would have murdered him outright. That would be a clear case of us murdering him. Same as Keelhaul. Naturally in neither case do the other murderers escape culpability.

  43. Indeed. In retrospect Napoleon and the Jacobins lived in a comparative Golden Age in which even revolutionaries and dictators had their scruples and actually believed that other people, even opponents possess more or less inalienable rights, including the right to life and free speech.

    The Jacobins most certainly did not believe that their opponents had any rights, least of all free speech. This was the faction that purged the National Convention of the Gironde and kicked off the Terror by sending 70 sitting MPs to the guillotine.

    • Right. I suppose though one could quibble with the wording to find Philomena literally correct. Since the Jacobins themselves lived in a golden age, but were breaking the standards of that age, with their inhumane behavior.

      Really I think its important right now to beat up on the Catallaxian war-crimes advocates and do the job right this time. For once they appear to be on the run and whipped. Focus Michael. Every other time, you, I, and CL have tried to push the case for just war, its turned into a filibuster by stupid-town. And they have quite often been successful in tainting one or other of us as being soft on the NAZIS. This one time they look to have lost their confidence. So its the time to get real traction against this unbelievably primitive riff-raff. With their pathetic and incredibly un-military cast of mind.

  44. Putting aside the higher-ranked war criminals, when an enemy soldier hands over his rifle he is your brother. In making that choice he has brought you that little bit closer to freedom and the good life. Any enlightened leadership has to know that our soldiers ought to be trained to act in a sort of hypocritical way. Be reluctant to surrender themselves, but if the other guy surrenders, do everything possible to show respect, good treatment, and make him feel that he’s done the right thing, and its easy street for him from here on in.

    For a man to stop shooting at you, who was shooting at you, and now he trusts you enough to hand over his rifle and put himself in your care, he has done you a great service. Since supposing your country is free, your side is just, and your war aims are fair and responsible and his side falls down in all these respects …… then by handing over his rifle he has given you the best gift he can give you. He deserves a long bath, a great feed, a two-hour Thai massage or something, medical treatment, and just basically all the good treatment and pampering that financial prudence allows you to give him while you are busy blasting to threads the others who were unwilling to so favor you and your country.

  45. Michael, I was referring to Napoleon’s relatively benign treatment of the Jacobins and political opponents such as Maine de Biran who were simply dismissed or exiled and subject to no more draconian action than imperial censorship.

  46. Napoleon actually ended the violence of the revolution as a young canoneer. He ended it with LESS LETHAL WEAPONRY. Unbelievable hey? Good ideas work. He ended the revolution with grapeshot.

    He seems like a fellow that one might have some sympathy with early on. But power corrupts.

  47. OK, well Napoleon was completely different and had himself started out as a Jacobin. In any case, they had been pretty much defanged after Thermidor.

  48. Graeme
    I think you’ll like this man

    http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2010/07/debt-system-mother-black

  49. Well he has a point Jason. The market spoke and would have wiped out all derivative products in 2008. But the derivative producers, lead by Goldman Sachs, also happened to be the most politically powerful. For two years now all of these people have been welfare queens.

    If you are a libertarian, pro-capitalist type living in an unlibertarian world the question raises its head “If the government is going to have all these regulations, what will be the nature of these regulations.”

    You came out squarely in favor of the bailout. Sinclair never came out against it. And we all know what Cambria did.

    If a country outlaws fractional reserve and stays in the growth-deflation pocket, none of these issues arise. Adopting any other policy means you’ll have to use more regulation to stay out of trouble. The lower you allow the reserve asset ratio to be, the more regulation you will need. The more inflation you have, the more laws you’ll need to stop the banks from abusing the system.

    So in the context of where we were in the 90’s getting rid of Glass-Steagall Act showed total incompetence, and the people who did it are drooling idiots.

    Now I’m going to have to go over that last statement four or five times. Why am I going to have to do this Jason? Its because you are a stupid Gook cunt.

    So lets go over this again:

    1. I’m not in favor of Glass-Steagall

    2. In the context of where we were in the 90’s getting rid of Glass-Steagall Act showed total incompetence,

    Now because you are reliably an idiot when these distinctions are made I’m going to have to keep going over this again and again and again until you get the picture through that thick Gook head of yours.

    If you outlaw fractional reserve and stay in the growth-deflation pocket, the only other regulations you need in the long run is to get rid of pyramiding more generally.

    BUT

    If you allow fractional reserve and insist on running inflationary policy you will need to regulate a shitload more to keep down debt levels and to stop the banks from abusing their position. You know. The position you insisted they be maintained in at taxpayer expense.

    This is the reason Nassim Taleb sounds like me. He sounds like me because he is the acknowledged expert in this field. He sounds like me because he knows what he is talking about.

    As already explained, there would be no derivatives now because the market would have wiped them all out in 2008. So the question (and you see how I’m having to repeat myself because of your utterly reliable idiocy) is how to regulate in a socialist monetary system. Where the other blockheads have insisted on fiat currency and fractional reserve.

    And the answer to that question is you would follow Nassims advice. You are not going to let these same assholes who ought to be unemployed, get back to the same old tricks they were getting up to before they raped the treasury.

    Now I wouldn’t do this. I would accept no second best options. I would outlaw all forms of pyramiding, and get into growth-deflation. The level of current debt would be too high for growth-deflation, and so I’ve already explained how we would deal with these debts. The banks would have been wiped out in 2008. Its not too late to see that they be wiped out now.

  50. We can make distinctions between two types of speculation. One type of speculation we can call “positive inventories speculation” and this type of speculation is socially beneficial. The positive inventories speculator benefits society by making money and/or by hedging for his clients.

    Then there is what we might call the “negative inventories speculator” or the “phantom supply speculator”. This activity is socially harmful. And the people who practice it have derivatives as a way of enabling them to get away with this practice.

    Hence Nassim Taleb is quite correct. In the context of failure to ban fractional reserve and all other types of pyramiding and failure to have commodity-money …… then smart regulation means getting rid of derivatives. The fellow knows what he is talking about. And as we have seen the market would have gotten rid of derivatives on its own, had it been allowed to.

  51. Bear in mind that Taleb is an expert. And being an expert he, like all other experts, knows that the current path is leading to the utter destruction of the US. So this is not something to be snide about Jason. Your idiot point of view is leading to the breakup of the US. He’s right to oppose this sort of idiocy.

  52. I had exactly the same experience as Taleb. I was explaining how our financial system was an elephant balancing on its trunk. The response by the dummies, posing as economists, was endless snide filibusting which came to be known as “threads of doom.” Of course I was proved perfectly correct. But Catallaxians are people who cannot get things right even with 20-20 vision.

    Now this is no small thing. This is the end of the US. And still its the same blockheads, who can get nothing right, who are making fun of the people they ought to be listening to. Taleb is a serious fellow who knows his stuff.

  53. Taleb is saying that, whereas most people seem to think that the crisis is somewhere in the middle, he thinks its only just beginning. He says he hopes he’s wrong. But he’s not wrong. We haven’t seen anything yet.

    Its just not something to be snide about. People who are snide are deaf with it. The US and Europe are heading down the S-Bend and here we are with the stupid wop Cambria, and others, ridiculing someone like Taleb who actually understands the subject.

    There is 22% unemployment in the US. This is where the US is at right now. And its only just begun. The crisis has only just gotten started.

  54. “There is 22% unemployment in the US. ”

    If you assert that FRB is the putative cause of this, please surrender your rights as an elector.

    • There is absolutely no doubt about it!!!!!!! Were there no fractional reserve there would not be monetary instability. Nor would there be as much debt. Nor would there be as much government spending. What is the matter with you you fucking ignorant cunt?

  55. “Now I’m going to have to go over that last statement four or five times. Why am I going to have to do this Jason? Its because you are a stupid Gook cunt.”

    Well said, Mr B. Very well said.

  56. Hi Graeme how ya doing?

  57. Very good tal. Always remember that in matters economic, I know what I’m talking about and that ignorant wop doesn’t.

  58. Fractional reserve passes no market test. 1982, 1991 and 2008. All the banks needed to be bailed out. The rest of the time inflation was needed to make it work.

    Its just a matter of idiot economists, taking their field of study seriously, learning the material, and attempting to not be so ignorant in the future.

    Imagine an economist so ignorant as to not understand that modern banking is fundamentally parasitical?

    Imagine being as ignorant as Sinclair Davidson and claiming that the 2008 blowup was nothing to do with fractional reserve? My God the discipline needed to maintain that level of ignorance has to be just astonishing.

  59. Please list succintly how FRB caused crises those three times.

  60. Formulate your question more specifically idiot.

    By Zeus. If you are going to subsidise a pyramid scheme, obviously there is going to be some consequences from that.

    Its about the chain of events. There would be no Paulson bailout and stimulus package were there no fractional reserve. No bailout, stimulus plan, no deficits, mean less unemployment.

    How do you maintain this level of ignorance. How do you explain how the 22% unemployment came about? It came about by a process, starting with the seizing up of the banks, due to fractional reserve.

    What do YOU think happened. I know what happened. You had the stimulus, the sieze-up, the bailout, more stimulus and therefore unemployment.

    How can you possibly imagine that the US government could be borrowing 2. trillion in a single year without fractional reserve? This is stupidity that is almost surreal.

    Do you see this debt clock?

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    Do you see it? Do you see the way debts are still increasing when the banks were so recently in trouble? Do you think even for one moment that this debt could go on increasing were it not for fractional reserve?

    For all those stupid diagrams that you probably didn’t learn anyway (National income diagrams, IS-LM curves) the Keynesian economic training that you got ignored the basic understanding of the structure of recessions and what changes need to happen prior to the economy getting back to a healthy stable basis.

    See that clock? Notice how few of the numbers are going down? The beginning of the process of recovery doesn’t even START until most of the numbers are going down.

    See how in the past under gold fractional reserve what changes needed to be made when you had a localised recessioin?

    Before the recession you had a lot of debt, you were losing monetary base, you were running a trade deficit, you had too much ponzi-money.

    For the recovery you needed to increase the monetary base, go into trade surplus, reduce the amount of debt and ponzi-money.

    But you look at the clock. You see how the debts keep going up. Well there can be no proper recovery until that changes. Hence the 22% unemployment. Since a recovery has been prevented.

    That may seem like a hodge-podge answer but formulate the question properly and I’ll formulate a clear answer.

    But drop this idiocy about succinctness. Because whilst your understanding of economics can fit on the back of a postage stamp, the real world is somewhat more complex then that.

  61. Bird,

    You’re conflating the costs of war, largesse and the operation of FRB

    NO I’M NOT. I NEVER ONCE CONFLATED THE TWO. THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU ARE AN IGNORANT MORON. WARS, THE EXPANSION OF FRB AND GOVERNMENT DEBT ALL GO TOGETHER HISTORICALLY. ITS NOT A MATTER OF CONFLATING THEM SINCE IN REALITY THEY ARE BUNDLED UP TOGETHER. YOU CANNOT SERIOUSLY BE SAYING THAT THESE CLOWNS WOULD EVER GET INTO THIS MUCH DEBT IF THERE WAS NO FRACTIONAL RESERVE ALLOWED, BUT YOU ARE SAYING THIS. BECAUSE ARE A MORON.

    ….and then assigning blame to FRB for the figures on the debt clock THE REASON I ASSIGN THE BLAME IS BECAUSE FRB IS TO BLAME. BANKERS WHEN THEY CAN PRACTICE FRB START FUNNELING PONZI MONEY AT GOVERNMENTS AND REAL ESTATE GUYS, RATHER THEN AT WEALTH CREATION. and U6 figures.

  62. I caught your unbelievably moronic comment on Catallaxy. You will do so much better if you remember what a total fucking moron you are!!!!!!!

    Learn the fucking material MARK. And get some help with your logic. You are a fucking idiot mate. You are a moron.

    I do not advocate inflationary policies. Raising the reserve asset ratio is …… what Mark? Inflationary or deflationary?

    New cash creation is what Mark? Inflationary or deflationary?

    So what happens if you put them together and aim at growth deflation?

    Now get some fucking help with your logic mate. You are just a lunatic.

    Again. Raising the reserve asset ratio????? Inflationary or deflationary????

    Can you not get anything right you fucking stupid stupid stupid stupid cunt. This was you all the time on these threads of doom with this constant logic deficit.

  63. LETS GO OVER IT AGAIN YOU FUCKING IDIOT. IF YOU LIFT THE RAR TO 50% OVERNIGHT, AND YOU DON’T INCREASE THE MONETARY BASE…….

    …….. INFLATIONARY OR DEFLATIONARY? WHICH IS IT MARK YOU MENTALLY DERANGED DROPKICK???

    INFLATIONARY OR DEFLATIONARY???????

    THIS IS SO SIMPLE. SO WELL KNOWN AND UNDERSTOOD. SO OBVIOUS. AND YOU STILL CANNOT GET IT RIGHT. FURTHERMORE JASON AND SINCLAIR ARE SUCH UNETHICAL IGNORANT CUNTS THEMSELVES, IT IS BEYOND THEIR CAPACITY TO CORRECT YOU ON SOMETHING AS OBVIOUS AS THIS.

    THIRD PARTIES NOTE. SINCLAIR WILL NOT BE CORRECTING MARK ON THIS OBVIOUS MATTER. AND WHY? BECAUSE HE’S AN IGNORANT CUNT, AND BECAUSE HE IS A CUNT. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THE APPALLING STATE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS IN THIS COUNTRY, IN THE ECONOMICS PROFESSION. THE APPALLING IGNORANCE AND THE RAMPANT IMMORALITY.

  64. YOU HAVE A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION TO ANSWER. ANSWER IT OR FUCK OFF.

  65. YOU’VE GOT A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION TO ANSWER. ITS A QUESTION THAT ANYONE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER UNLESS THEY HAVE NO CAPACITY FOR LOGIC, AND ARE IGNORANT ….. BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

    ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU CUNT.

  66. FOR THE LOVE OF RETARDS AND DROOLING IDIOT CHICKS WITH HUGE TITS EVERYWHERE.

    YOU WERE GIVEN A SPECIFIC QUESTION. AND YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION. YOU ARE SO FUCKING RETARDED YOU DECIDED TO ANSWER A QUESTION OF YOUR OWN CHOOSING. NOT ONLY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF THE EASIEST MOST BASIC LOGIC, YOU ARE A LIAR WITH IT. CLAIMING THAT YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION WHEN YOU DID NO SUCH THING.

  67. Consider how appalling the situation is. You have this moron who cannot get any question of logic or economics right. And none of the economists can simply reach over and set the dumb cunt straight about matters.

    Yet when Humphreys got in an argument with Gerry Jackson, and Humphreys was dead wrong, out comes the ignorant fool Sinclair, in support of Humphreys. Out they all came. They cannot correct one of their own, but they will fuck up publicly to run down an outsider. They are just so useless these people.

  68. MARK YOU ARE AN IDIOT. YOU ARE NOT IN THE POSITION TO MAKE SUCH A DETERMINATION. DON’T STOOGE YOURSELF. IF YOU CANNOT ANSWER THE MOST BASIC QUESTION, THAT I COULD HAVE ANSWERED AS A TWELVE YEAR OLD, YOU ARE IN NO POSITION TO MAKE MORE COMPLEX JUDGEMENTS. IT IS A FACT THAT GERRY WAS ENTIRELY RIGHT, AND HUMPHREYS WAS BEING HIS UTTERLY IGNORANT SELF AS USUAL. AND SINCLAIR FUCKED UP. LIKE A COMPLETE MORON. MADE A FOOL OF HIMSELF AND SHOWED HE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE. A TOTAL EMBARRASSMENT. I NEVER KNEW QUITE HOW IGNORANT THE FELLOW WAS UNTIL THAT MOMENT.

  69. “What I like is how Bird sees no porblem with printing cash but finds bank leverage unacceptable. The dolt. When our RAR dropped from 25% to 8%, there wasn’t a 300% increase in the price level.”

    Of course there wasn’t!!!! Why would there be? You are not capable of logic Mark. This is not an answer to the question I asked. You are just a moron mate.

    For once an economist corrected you. But only anonymously. sdfc is a closet economist as far as I can make out.

    Why don’t you just answer the fucking question you were asked.

    Supposing you don’t increase the monetary base. Then you increase the RAR to 50% overnight …….

    ……. inflationary or deflationary?

    Which is it.

    Now can somebody other than sdfc answer the question FOR Mark if Mark continues to prove he has no competence to get the answer right. There is only two choices. Its a multi-choice question. Its the easiest sort of question imaginable. Multichoice and only two choices.

  70. Lets go over it again:

    Supposing you don’t increase the monetary base. Then you increase the RAR to 50% overnight …….

    ……. inflationary or deflationary?

    Which is it.

  71. Supposing you don’t increase the monetary base. Then you increase the RAR to 50% overnight …….

    ……. inflationary or deflationary?

    Which is it.

  72. Pretty simple I would have thought. A ten year old would have a better than 50% chance of getting it right, but its a little bit too hard for Mark, Jason, or Sinclair.

  73. YES I KNOW HE’S A KEYNESIAN MARK. BUT HE’S NOT MENTALLY DERANGED AS ARE YOU. NOW ITS A SIMPLE QUESTION. YET YOU ARE NOT COMPETENT TO ANSWER IT.

  74. JC notes that

    “SDFC says easy monetary policy encourages easy credit conditions.”

    Which is obviously correct. Is JC contradicting sdfc? Who knows. Who cares. We ought not care when we see this question:

    “Okay dude… what marker would you use that would tell you that monetary conditions are easy? Would you use the current one, CPI or somehting else?”

    Note that the question has nothing to do with the observation. Its like you have people here who cannot put together the easiest logical relationships. Is JC saying that if sdfc cannot cobble together some metrics, that his earlier correct observation is somehow incorrect? You see JC is just trying to make sdfc jump through hoops.

  75. DON’T BE AN IDIOT TILLMAN. HAVE YOU BEEN READING GALBRAITH THE YOUNGER OR SOMETHING?

    OF COURSE THE DEFICIT IS A PROBLEM. IT REPRESENTS WEALTH-DESTRUCTION ON A MASSIVE SCALE. THATS ECONOMICS AND REASON 101 DOPEY. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I TOLD YOU? KEYNES DID NOT UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS. THE GENERAL THEORY IS PAGE AFTER PAGE OF IGNORANCE.

  76. Here is an interesting take on history. I am in no position to confirm or deny all of the alleged concrete facts of the matter:

    • Man I hate those Jew Bastards.

  77. Bravo Mark Hill WHAT DO YOU MEAN? THE CHICKENSHIT LOON HASN’T GOT THE COURAGE TO ANSWER A SIMPLE MULTI-CHOICE QUESTION. HE’S BASICALLY A COWARD.

  78. This history indirectly shows why fractional reserve is inherently wealth-destroying. In the opening dialogue, the historian points out that the original Rothschild founder discovered he could make more profits by lending to government then to private business.

    This is wealth destruction. It makes government bigger than it otherwise would be. And it diverts resources from wealth creation to investments in taxeater ego.

  79. Bravo, Mr B.

    You’re not afraid to take the Jews on.

    Bravo.

  80. Well its not the Jews per se. Its the fractional reservists. And I’m far from breaking matters down to concrete facts and building the picture back up again.

    Although the last historian linked appears to be solid on all points.

  81. Yes of course.

    I understand Mr B. (wink wink)

    We don’t have anything against our Hebrew Brethren, although God knows they are greedy bastards aren’t they.

  82. they are disproportionately jews Mr B, right?

    • Well. One would suspect at the moment that Jews are over-represented in the higher circles of banking. Thats about all I can say about that topic while retaining any accuracy. But Paulson isn’t Jewish. So its a fractional reserve thing and not a Jewish thing.

      Think of the 19th century. Think of the setup that old man Rothschild had, with his horses faster than Wellingtons courier. So he convinces everyone that Wellington has lost and secretly buys everything up. Once one family got that big and if it is true that they controlled some of the central banks, then this is the jump on everyone else that would be hard to overcome.

      In normal business there are grave diseconomies of scale. But in fractional reserve, with government backing, there is unnatural economies of scale. If you can add to this covert ops. thats a head start that the others may not ever be able to peel back. So its at least theoretically possible that one network could wind up controlling everything if fractional reserve is not illegal.

      Obviously that network, if it were in the form of a family, would have an ethnic background as all families have.

  83. Jews are the victims of this human farming just the same as everyone else. If the most powerful ‘farmer-family’ turns out to be Jewish, well this is neither here nor there.

  84. Paulson is a Mormon. I hate those Bastards too, don’t you Mr B?

    • No but I do dislike the lunatic Paulson. Because his appearance on the scene really was the last straw to the US becoming a fascist state. That is to say the corporations and the government as one. I’d like to blame it on Obama, but Paulson got there first and set up the cruise-path for this total lawlessness we see now. Of course the stress of a long war set up the conditions for Paulson.

      This time around with fascism, its the bankers taking over the government, whereas last time it was Mussolini and Hitler co-opting the Corps.

      Now of course there was always these tendencies there. But with Paulson it become entirely brazen and out in the open.

      What amazes me is how the Paulson stupidity could suddenly go global. Suddenly Keynes is back in like he never left. Like there was no stagflation in the 70’s, like there never had been the recognition, all but official, that Keynes was full of shit.

      When I left university Keynes was still there in the universities themselves. But barely there in the profession. With Paulson he was back with fangs. We don’t know how much of this can be considered conspirational activity, and how much of it is the work of sheeple, white house-niggers, and useful idiots. For example Sinclair was quoting Mankiw (of all people) to the Senate. This despite Sinclair affecting to be the ultimate Pigouvian and Mankiw, almost childlike, starting up some notion called “The Pigou Club.” Sinclair was triangulating. He was coming down against high stimulus. But it was devastating since it set forth the notion that the Keynesian multiplier was legitimate, whereas its obvious hocus pocus.

      I was just about the only person saying that a recession needs massive fiscal slashing. Perhaps some monetary stimulus through new cash injection, with an increase in the RAR to stop that new cash from overshooting ones GDR target. What I’m saying is that you need monetary stimulus according to circumstance, and that ought to be to get GDR to BOUNCE THEN FLATTEN. Whereas you always needed to reduce fiscal spending and ask for people to save in a recession.

      Always you want debts and ponzi-money to be less, and monetary base to replace the ponzi-money. Always you want to reduce other types of spending and increase business-to-business spending to get out of a recession.

      But suddenly with Paulson this was all out the window. Instead it was held that we needed to steal off everyone, to give to the banks, so that the banks could lend that stolen money back to us. We needed to have the government spending even more than before. And piling on more debt. Crazy stuff.

      Not everything Sinclair does is bad. He did some heroic work with exposing the waste in the Rudd schools revolution idiocy. But he’s a weakling. A triangulator. Not someone that can be relied on. Just someone who does some good work once in awhile.

  85. don’t forget the cossacks Mr H

    kulak exploiters all of them

  86. Perhaps responding to my criticism yesterday, Cambria gives sdfc a more considered response. But note two things.

    1. The twit reckons its difficult to reign in cash-bank-pyramiding. But this is only because he refuses to consider an RAR. Something which all countries had prior to the 80’s.

    2. Note that he’s still a blockhead Keynesian. Acting like he just got through reading the first edition of Krugman’s first economics book meant for the public. He refuses point blank to consider the idea of massive slashing of government spending. He refuses to consider fiscal restraint until the news is that we are officially in recovery mode. How is one supposed to recover if you won’t do what it takes to recover?

    Of course the public, with its own savings and retained earnings, may struggle out of recession, even with the government burden still weighing heavily on its back. But why impede the recovery process? Why not get the hell out of the way by slashing spending?

    The stupid wop has no answer. Because the stupid wop studied only Keynesian economics 101 and understands nothing else. On the other hand this is a good post for him because he’s actually attempting to be reasonable.

    SDFC SEZ

    High levels of private debt make an economy vulnerable to financial crisis.

    JC SEZ

    Yes, that’s true.

    SDFC

    This has been shown time and again.

    JC

    yes, that’s true.

    SDFC

    Central banks have a duty not to increase the vulnerability of the financial sector by allowing credit and money growth to get out of control.

    JC

    Yes that’s true, but it’s easier said than done for reasons I won’t elaborate.

    (((((I SEZ: BECAUSE THE STUPID WOP HAS RULED OUT AN RAR)))))))

    SDFC SEZ

    The Fed can expand the money base and prevent a wholesale banking collapse as it has done on in the latest episode but it has little effect on private credit flows if the transmission mechanism is broken.

    ((((I SEZ, HERE SDFC IS QUITE WRONG. OBVIOUSLY MORE MONEY BASE WILL IPSO FACTO MEAN LESS MONETARY AND/OR SPENDING COLLAPSE THEN OTHERWISE. IF THE RAR CAN BE EXPANDED TO 100% YOU CAN HAVE MASSIVE CASH INJECTION WITHOUT THIS BEING INFLATIONARY. THE COMBINATION CAN LEAD YOU TO HIT ANY NOMINAL GDR TARGET THAT YOU WANT. SDFC IS NOT CLIMBING OUT OF THIS MISTAKE BECAUSE OF HIS TRIBAL ALLEGEANCE TO KEYNES))))

    JC

    Here you go again. You first off suggest that Fed can control the money supply; in fact should control it and then when the shit hits the fan the transmission belt is broken… magically the Fed is unable to do anything. And what is needed to help things along? Oh that’s right, insulation plans and building school dunnies and green loans. Pleaze…

    SDFC

    This is why people like me advocate the use of fiscal policy to mitigate the effect on the real economy.

    JC

    As I said, pleaze.

    The funny is thing is that no one here that I know of has advocated a do nothing policy. There are plenty of things the government can do to alleviate a sharp dip. It could have cut payroll taxes, cuts taxes further for both corporations and the individual and importantly just as we’re coming out reign in spending.

    (((((JUST AS WE ARE COMING OUT???? IDIOT!!!!! WE NEED THE FISCAL SLASHING IMMEDIATELY. IF WE GET IT EARLY ENOUGH WE AVOID RECESSION. BUT WE NEED IT RIGHT AWAY TO GET OUT OF THE RECESSION. BUT STILL THE DUMB WOP WON’T COMPREHEND.))))))))

    Note that both of these Keynesians are wrong. There is nothing more stupid then two Keynesians arguing with eachother.

  87. Diplomacy for Australia, will not work. if we do not know who it is we are dealing with. Who it is we must deter against working against our interests.

    Russ Baker coming around to the point of view, that there is more to power politics then what we would like to believe.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/

  88. JC oddly in good form today. I noted earlier that in one post he was at least TRYING to be reasonable. Think about trying to think. Such thinking can pay off. Who would have thought.

    Here is what should turn out to be one of the most important websites on the net. Since it is serious investigative journalists, looking at the paradigm of shadow government.

    http://whowhatwhy.com/

    Sometimes it takes an outsiders eyes for this sort of thing. Perhaps to be able to ignore any myths that might have built up over time.

  89. graeme

    what do you think about humphreys’ disendorsement?

  90. (site deity sez) When you are using your head like you have been on Catallaxy today of course you are welcome back to this blog Cambria. But there is to be no telling lies on this site. Humphreys was so badly beaten on the carbon tax by people like myself, Prodos, and Gerry, that fundamentally he just went deaf.

    He would not debate people who could whip him, and so how could he come close to reaching his potential? When he finally did engage the debate, he then tells me GRAEME YOU HAVE A CHOICE. He claimed that I had to choose between the higher and lower ranges that the computer models were spitting out. Now this is seriously fucked up epistemology right there. We are going into cooling if the scientific evidence is anything to go by. But all the computer models said that we would be warming. Some choice. The evidence or the computer models. Then like all the Pigouvian extremists he wanted to make out that the science didn’t matter. Of course the science mattered. Was extra CO2 good or bad for the biosphere? The answer was that it was good. The evidence says that CO2 levels could soar and drop through the floor when the next cooling period is quite well established. Which means of course that we would want a greater and not a lesser output of CO2, should we have that choice, insofar as it is compatible with cutting spending and a freer and more just society.

    But it didn’t matter to him. Somebody was saying somewhere that there was a negative externality. There wasn’t a negative externality, so the truth of the situation didn’t matter to him. He was being childish, by posing as an adult, presiding over the squabbling of children on both sides. These issues are not there so that Humphreys can go through a set of poses. The one side was wrong and lying. The other side was trying to make sense of the evidence. And here he was putting the good guys down by affecting to make a solution that both sides, he thought, ought to be able to live with. He ought to have been a scholar. He ought to have not been jacking off in public like that.

    Furthermore Humphreys has made people wary of him. By seeming to come across as a gun-for-hire BARRISTER posing as an ECONOMIST. He argues like a barrister. Not like a logician. So one wonders if the people who have employed him were whoring for government favor and money, and then trying to back out of being responsible for advocating as devastating a thing as a carbon tax. I mean that would have been the last straw on our fragile economy, a carbon tax. And he was selling us out but who was putting him up to it we wondered? Who wanted to gain the upper hand in consultancy? Was it the same people who sacked Jennifer? Who watched the superb Ergas’ consultancy start losing money and did not want to share his fate?

    You see we cannot put up with any selling out on the right. When we get the chance we have to punish people who are pulling that sort of caper for at least ten years. People can disagree on the right, but they cannot sell out like that. Like whoever hired Humphreys to push the carbon tax, or alternatively like Humphreys himself.

    The damage is immense. Just the damage the threat of a carbon tax is doing, is itself huge. If we had the actuality of the carbon tax we could easily go under.

  91. is that true Graeme? do you envy Humphreys’ intellectual and sexual prowess?

  92. “is that true Graeme? do you envy Humphreys’ intellectual and sexual prowess?”

    Hardly. Humphreys is intellectually constipated and sexually spastic. That is to say gay. On the other hand he seems to have a lot of raw intelligence that isn’t getting used. And you only see that if you see him in person when he’s got himself a case of the humbles. That he took on Gerry and didn’t realise that Gerry had it entirely over him shows how unsound he is.

    Whereas I’m just listening to Prodos’ radio-show, and Gerry happens to come on, and I have a great deal of understanding in economics …. enough to know immediately that I had to listen to every last thing that fellow had to say. He’s talking, I’m listening.

    It was like that with swimming coaches to. When you know a lot you know who to listen to. Despite probably having a very high IQ, Humphreys just isn’t a developed intellectual enough to know who to listen to. Yet he can be impressive one-to-one just so long as he isn’t in bighead mode.

    Its not sad that he’s lost pre-selection. In fact its quite natural. Now that Rudd is seen as beatable it makes sense to put someone in with experience to make sure he’s good and beaten. I wouldn’t really begrudge Humphreys too much getting to be an MP. But he’d be a liability if it meant he could get closer to real power. Plus it is a bit annoying that he’s always been on the bludge. It seems he’s never done any real work ever. Which makes him a potential hollow-man.

    He’s had too much success too fast for his intellectual abilities. Not for his intellectual potential but for his current intellectual abilities. Its only good and proper if its another ten years before he has another burst of success. He went too far too soon and a lot of people got wise to him that he wasn’t what he was cracked up to be.

    Instead of being a high-flyer he ought to attempt to be a scholar for awhile. Since that is what he has been posing as, that is what he ought to make real. Or as John Houseman (in ‘The Paper Chase’) might say:

    “Do the WORK Mr Humphreys. Then you won’t have to do the DANCE.”

  93. Mr B

    I think you must have a higher IQ and certainly a More Sophisticated Understanding of Economics than anyone in that Catlaxative crowd.

    RIGHT. THATS TRUE. KATES IS SOUND BUT HIS KNOWLEDGE SEEMS DEEP RATHER THAN WIDE. HE MAY NOT HAVE ALL THE MONETARY SIDE OF THINGS UNDER HIS BELT. BUT HE’S SOUND AND RATIONAL. THE REST ARE PRETTY HOPELESS. WITH SINCLAIR ONCE IN AWHILE PUTTING UP A GOOD SHOW.

    They just seem to be a bunch of Ethnically Ambiguous Half-Breeds and Cretins. I can’t imagine what sort of sight they present in person.

    RIGHT. WHEN WE WERE INTRODUCED TO ENTIRE ECONOMICS FACULTY IN MY FINAL YEAR I SAID UNDER MY BREATH “THEY ARE A PHYSICAL BUNCH, I’LL GIVE THAT TOO THEM.” THIS BROUGHT FORTH FAILED ATTEMPTS TO CHOKE BACK LAUGHTER FROM MY CORNER OF THE ROOM.

    Imagine getting stuck in a lift overnight with Tillman.

    Imagine the gooks invade and so you and your kids grab your Metal Storm and head down to join a Citizens’ Battalion.

    And you find out Lt Joe Cambria is in charge.

    Imagine your car breaks down on a lonely winter road and a car pulls over to pick you up and Birdlab dis driving. “Hop in, mate. She’s nice and warm.”

    Do you get in the car?

    Of course not. You try your luck on your own.

    Why do you even humour them, Mr B?

    Am I Way Off the Mark here?

    • No Ron. You are spot on. Spot on. Its a scary picture you paint for sure. Though I just want to say how much in favor of miscegenation I am, if saying you are spot on implies otherwise. There are very few things I’m more in favor of then miscegenation.

  94. Mr B

    I think John Houseman was on the Other Team. Just so you know.

  95. Ha Ha. Well if you take that view, what with him playing a lawyer, and having “-man” on the end of his name ….. well just pretend he was some aging Brit or something.

    You must realise that one of my favorite people has “-man” on the end of his name, is of soundly righteous character, and is the greatest economist alive today.

    Its not about Jews Ron. Its about bank-cash-pyramiding. Pyramiding in general. Cold-evil, and we do not have the resources for it.

    We need to get rid of three types of parasitism and greatly reduce , at the very least, a fourth type. And this fourth type is welfarism. We cannot reduce welfarism humanely and fairly, giving a boost to most poor peoples real incomes, if we are going to waste all our resources on bank-parasitism.

  96. (site deity sez:) Mark this is an adult blog for people who are not evasive and who want to come here and attempt to think. So supposing you wish to make a post here. Surely it is not unreasonable for you to be able to answer simple fucking questions. But apparently you are too much of a loony-toons to be even able to do THAT!!!!!!!! So you really don’t belong on this blog.

    Try asking simple fucking questions. See how that goes hey?

  97. No Mark. We do not “need a carbon tax.”

    What is the problem that the carbon tax is a solution to?

    Answer the fucking question. Define the problem carefully. Use clarity and logic. Don’t be evasive. Just because the Gook is evasive and Humphreys is evasive and that dumb wop is also evasive doesn’t mean its okay for you to be evasive. So answer the fucking question. Not a question of your choosing. Answer fucking questions that I ask you.

    Don’t tell lies. Don’t make absurd statements. Simply defining things clearly and working through the subject logically will get your comments approved.

    Don’t jump-cut with your logic. It makes you a loony-toons doing this. Work it out logically. You have a logic deficit. You’ve got to overcome this logic deficit.

  98. “WHEN WE WERE INTRODUCED TO ENTIRE ECONOMICS FACULTY IN MY FINAL YEAR I SAID UNDER MY BREATH “THEY ARE A PHYSICAL BUNCH, I’LL GIVE THAT TOO THEM.” THIS BROUGHT FORTH FAILED ATTEMPTS TO CHOKE BACK LAUGHTER FROM MY CORNER OF THE ROOM.”

    So you have been a disrespectful prick for how many decades now? Or did it start from birth?

    Your fellow students were probably laughing at you for being a jerk, just one of many instances I’d wager.

    • What you don’t understand is the picture presented. The physical lineup of these guys all in one spot. Not exactly underwear models. So now I get what Jason was driving at and he’s right. I’m carrying right now about 12 kilos too much. I ought to be about 88 but I’m about 100. So fair comment. But you see the comment was made in early 1985. When I was more or less chiseled out of rock.

  99. hey gra gra

    aren’t you like the last person who should be mocking others’ physical abilities?

  100. I wouldn’t think so. Being a multiple age-group champion, swimming from a cold pool and largely coaching myself…

    On the other hand you are probably right. Not everyone can be a gifted athlete. But then again I don’t remember mocking anyones physical difficulties. Mark has a serious logic deficit. And he cannot often get questions right, or even answer questions, that I’d expect a smart year seven kid to handle.

  101. “I wouldn’t think so. Being a multiple age-group champion, swimming from a cold pool and largely coaching myself…

    You’re an inspiration, Mr Bird.

    “When I was more or less chiseled out of rock.”

    My older sister always referred to herself as a “rock” meaning a source of strength to herself and other people in her lives. I think you’re the kind of rock too.

  102. THAT kind of rock

  103. The Example

    Here’s an example from
    A Butterfly;
    That on a rough, hard rock
    Happy can lie;
    Friendless and all alone
    On this unsweetened stone.

    Now let my bed be hard,
    No care take I;
    I’ll make my joy like this
    Small Butterfly;
    Whose happy heart has power
    To make a stone a flower.

    W.H.Davies

  104. Well you are very kind Philomena. My get fit schemes can get stalled if I overdo it. I went for a three and a half hour bike ride one day. Next day a was climbing the stairs at Wat Phrathat Doi Suthep. Then I was having swimming races with the kids.

    I did a length of butterfly. The kids at the shallow were taking lessons and I think the teacher interrupted to get the kids to watch me. When I got to the end a little boy about 5 was smiling and giving me the thumbs up. It may be the case that they will never see someone that fat swim butterfly quite like that, again in their lives. But then I certainly don’t hope to be that fat ever again in my life, and twelve kilos have to go and they are going to go.

    Then the next day I went motor-cycle riding with my brother in-law. He takes me to this mountain with heaps more stairs. More climbing inside these massive caves. And the climb to the top of the mountain

    Well after all that I was exhausted. I couldn’t seem to do anything for about three days. Everyday I woke up with sore legs until I was in a bit of a panic. So I had to get on the motorbike again and get a Thai massage to finally set things right. Plus its a bit hard to recover if you are always going out to dinner with friends and relatives.

    But I should be back on track again, and fitter than before. When I go home I’ll never work nightshift again. This is where I think things have been going wrong. If you do nightshift for more than a few years it starts getting to you.

    Hey I noticed something else pretty interesting. Well I think its interesting. I took the opportunity of going to Thailand to get my teeth comprehensively fixed up.

    Well for years, as every year went by, I appeared to be more and more prone to car sickness. So much so I cannot stand buses, and only really like trains.

    But once my teeth were properly sorted, I noticed that I haven’t yet felt carsick since. This is a problem with medicine at the moment I think. Its rational in its way, but insufficiently holistic. Like I could have taken pills for carsickness. Pills for this and pills for that. But if you could have a medical science that was both holistic and rational, this would seem to be a more effective sort of thing.

  105. Hey Graeme
    Don’t take this as mockery because I’m being serious for the moment but word of advice – swimming may be good cardio but it isn’t necessarily ideal for fat burning.
    1) Unless you have great willpower it builds up an appetite and you end up gorging yourself after. You don’t get quite the same effect for other cardio activities that make you sweat because your body warming up kind of kills your appetite a bit.
    2) There is at least tentative evidence that your body adapts to being in cold water all the time (if you do swimming often) by hoarding its fat.

    Want something that isn’t as high impact or boring as running endless miles, try some skipping instead.

    BTW how the fuck did you get to 100 kg man? last time I saw you you weren’t close to that

    • All good points. I like skiipping. I used to be able to do double skips and finish off with a triple. But I don’t have a good place to skip at the moment. One reason swimming might not burn as much fat as punching the bag and skipping, is that to swim economically at training speeds, you wind up using your legs very little. And the muscles burn oxygen and therefore fat (if you are working aerobically and pulling long distances) in proportion to their size. Hence any fat-burning wants you to be working a lot with your torso, glutes and thighs. People are very neglectful of the torso. If you learn how to punch bringing your torso right into it as well, and you are working the bag and skipping, the fat seems to melt right off. So I’m certainly with you on these points you are making.

      Civilians and even sports coaches tend to think of abs but they don’t so much think of the torso. One reason I developed an actual knock-out punch (I shit you not) when I was younger (though as I’ve explained I simply could not spar for shit), was the freestyle developed my torso. Like what you would have if you were working with a speedball in that partner exercise that the boxers use. That sort of thing is underutilised in practically all sports as far as I can make out. You look at Mike Tison while Cus was still alive. You see this tremendous power, a lot of it deriving from torso level. Of course the fellow they call Mike Tison isn’t the outstanding, supreme athlete, of old, but just some clown pretending to be him.

      I’ve overcome some of these problems that you talk about at home at least. I’ve got these divers weights that I’ve strapped to my ankles. I can barely walk with the buggers, they are so heavy. But I’ve got flippers on. So it more or less obligates me to keep a deep near-scissor kick on the fly all the time, just to stop the feet sinking to the bottom. And these days I’m trying to draw the near-maximum amount of power through the torso.

      This ankle weights arrangement also replicates more (in a slow motion way) the type of stroke that is needed when you get to be really fast. So I’ll be back to that sort of gig when I get home.

      I’ve been inspired a bit by two unlikely sources. Unlikely because one person is very very young, the other very very old. I came to the thinking that my hands and feet were way too small to be successful at the highest levels past the 1960’s. I probably had the ability to get in the finals with Spitz, but when the competition was even faster than that, I consider this beyond my capacity even if all my training conditions had been idyllic, I was getting paid two thousand a week just to train, and so forth.

      You see the surface tension on water increases to the cube of the speed you are going. And the underwater resistance increases to the square. The result is that a short kid with the flat swimming style can often do very well at the age group level of speeds he needs to win all the races.

      The physics of it, as you get to adult competition, means that you really want to be built like Thorpe or even the abnormally built Phelps. But just taking Thorpe; when you get to a certain speed you really need to have your body aligned so there is never two shoulders in the water. Then you flip from one side to the other. So its as if your streamlining was that of a great fat pinhead seal, should your shoulders be cut out of it. Actually to this extent I believe the womens body to be typically more streamlined then the male. More seal-like.

      Well anyhow to flip side-to-side like that, without simply thrashing about, is a near impossible thing to do for a short person with small hands and feet. You want to kick well enough to never actually have your hands move backwards in relation to the water. To have backward hand movement, in relation to the still water, is a waste of energy. But kicking hard burns energy also. So someone like Thorpe, with his long body and disproportionately big feet, could get it just about perfect. In the longer distances he would take less strokes then everyone else, and in the sprints more strokes then anyone his height, and this was because he always stuck to the principle that your hands more or less barely-if-ever move backwards in relation to the water. Had he been able to maintain the motivation I believe he would have got the 100m world record. Not because he was a natural sprinter. But just because he could have taken less joules to maintain the right pace after the dive and the turn.

      Now I don’t think I could ever have operated at that level. But there is this young kid ….. Yolande Kukla, I think her name is. That is able to beat all those tall kids despite being pretty short. I find this pretty inspiring and certainly would hope to watch her act any time I could.

      Also there is this English fellow I’ve met in Thailand. He reckons he bikes about 50 km a day and considers himself really fit. He knows this Thai fellow who bikes 200 km a day, at a considerably faster pace then himself, and is in his 70’s. That would seem to mean that you can get in pretty good shape even as an old bugger if its with these forms of exercises that don’t hammer your knees and lower back.

      So anyway, now that I’m on dayshift plans are afoot to get to where I can swim a great deal faster than I could swim as a kid. And I’m pretty sure I’ll be successful at this. The pace they swim in masters division may mean that my shorter size (the competitors I used to whip as a kid were often over six foot even when they were 14) may not be the material disadvantage from a sheer physics perspective as it was, or seemed to be, when you were looking at open (non-age-group) competition.

      “BTW how the fuck did you get to 100 kg man? last time I saw you you weren’t close to that”

      I’m a lot heavier than I look. But my fat percentage, as measured by those machines in the gym, is average for someone my age. Was UNDER AVERAGE last I checked. Whereas someone looking at me would take a different point of view.

      Using fat percentage as the measure is a little bit rich for someone like me. Because if you have quite a lot of muscle that brings down your fat percentage. Whereas having quite a lot of muscle doesn’t require one to be carrying a shit-load more fat to keep it company. The upshot being that I’m carrying somewhat more than the average fat in absolute terms, for my age and height. And twelve kilos would have to go is my estimate. I see big guys walking down the street that I look nowhere near as bulky as and often it would turn out that I’m heavier than these guys.

      By one measure I’m slim. By three others I’m a fatty. But this will change as I said. I’ll be on dayshift, and be able to sleep in six hour bursts and just generally have a more normal lifestyle.

      I came out of the shower and my twelve year old niece-in-law…..

      ((((((I wish I was just at liberty to call these kids my nieces and nephews. Because thats how I think of them. They call me loong-Graeme, which means uncle-Graeme))))))

      So my niece is surprised by me coming out of the shower. She sees me, and no time to mentally prepare, with just this big towel wrapped round me. She looked a bit stunned and said “Ohhhh……. King Kong”…….

      Well I suppose thats a bad enough honest reaction. But what she didn’t say is something that would imply that the 100 kilos was just all that of a real fatass.

  106. BTW how the fuck did you get to 100 kg man? last time I saw you you weren’t close to that

    Studies show that Tooheys and Krispy Kreme are more fattening when wearing a tinfoil hat and blogging.

  107. There is this rock video where there is a fat guy at a dancing audition. And he can dance really well. Someone let me know what the song was hey?

  108. Hey babe, was it Jack Black? He is such a hottie.

    • Ha Ha Ha. Hilarious. But not it was this fellow with a moustache. Lighter coloured hair. And it was a full video of charting single.

  109. Mr Bird
    It appears that those doubting Thomases who ridiculed your theory that that oriental family in Epping were killed by their own government owe you an apology

    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-take-lin-inquiries-to-china-20100716-10e6y.html

  110. The message has to go out of the poison of globalism. All that globalism means is that our politicians, taxeaters and lawyers ((((bankers, intelligence services, and covert ops))), will be far more beholden to their counterparts overseas, than to their own electorate. And we will see all these examples of “sending people a message.”

    So we will do the Clinton thing, and under cover of war, murder Chinese radio station civilians. And they will send us a message and take our guys hostage and bludgeon an entire Australian family to death.

    This is how these assholes on both sides of national borders, will deal with us all the time, if we cannot reverse the utter menace of globalism.

    I cannot cope with the stupidity of people imagining that another country sends thousands of their spies to our country and maintains them on the payroll for years just to do nothing at all. This is ahistorical. Its idiotic, The stupidity has to stop.


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: