Financial Education and Propaganda in Novels
roypd...@my-deja.com
mystery fiction. However a recent attempt to kill two birds with one
stone by combining a how-to-invest manual with a who-dunnit is probably
unique. A few weeks ago the Financial Times had a section on business
books which included a review (on page 21, Tuesday 17 October) of the
investment manual/whodunnit "A Killing on Wall Street" by Derrick
Niederman who is also the author of the "Inner Game of Investing."
The FT article made me think about other attempts to educate via
fiction, and although Niederman's novel may be unique in its particular
niche there are various other examples in the broad area of finance and
economics. I use the word "education" in a broad sense to include
dissemination of particular theories or doctrines, i.e. what could be
called propaganda, although that word for the marketing of ideas has
acquired negative connotations.
Early in the early 18th century Bernard Mandeville published "The Fable
of the Bees" with the subtitle " Private Vices, Publick [sic] Benefits"
which anticipated Adam Smith's idea that the pursuit of self-interest
can be beneficial for society. A hundred years later Harriet Martineau
wrote her "Illustrations of Political Economy" which appeared in 25
volumes. In it she used fiction as a vehicle both for entertainment and
for propounding, in an easily digestible form, the theories of Adam
Smith, Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo.
Probably very few people who have watched the film "Wizard of Oz" would
associate it with monetary theories but there is a view that L. Frank
Baum's novel is meant partly as an allegorical treatment of the
arguments in the dispute over the merits of the gold standard versus
bimetallism in the United States at the end of the 19th century and
beginning of the 20th. It is claimed that the Yellow Brick Road
symbolises the gold standard, the silver shoes of the witch represent
silver coinage, the name Oz supposedly comes from the abbreviation of
ounce (of gold) and the Cowardly Lion with his loud roar is William
Jennings Bryan, the unsuccessful candidate in the 1896 presidential
election.
Socialism is not a doctrine which one normally associates with the
United States but it did have a certain appeal in the early 20th century
and Upton Sinlair used his novels as a medium for spreading his
socialist views. 1907 was a year of widespread bank failures in the
United States. The following year Sinclair published "The Moneychangers"
which attacked both the moral corruption and the financial chicanery of
the bankers and speculators whose actions had precipitated the panic.
While Upton Sinclair's political opinions would have been shared by only
a minority of the population the dissatisfaction with the existing
system that the panic of 1907 engendered did lead to the creation of the
Federal Reserve System six years later.
At the opposite end of the political spectrum to Upton Sinclair was
libertarian philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand. "Atlas Shrugged" is a
novel celebration of capitalism which Rand saw as the motor of the
world. In a survey by the Library of Congress in 1991 it was listed
second only to the Bible as the most influential book in America.
John Kenneth Galbraith is not normally thought of as a novelist but he
has written two works of fiction, "The Triumph" and "A Tenured
Professor." I don't know off-hand if Galbraith had any educational
motives when he wrote his novels (perhaps other users of this newsgroup
will know) but there are obvious parallels between "A Tenured Professor"
and some of his books on economics. The principal character is a Harvard
professor of economics (as is Galbraith, although he is now an emeritus
professor) who creates an economic forecasting model that identifies
irrational speculation enabling him to profit from the folly of others.
The folly of speculators is a recurring theme some of Galbraith's
writings on economics including "The Great Crash: 1929", first published
in 1955, and "A Short History of Financial Euphoria" which came out in
1990, the year in which his novel about speculation also appeared.
One author whose fiction certainly is meant to be educational is Larry
Crumbley, professor of Accounting at Louisiana State University. He has
written a series of novels involving forensic accountancy with the aim
of presenting technical information which facilitates learning and
infuses student enthusiasm.
Forensic accountants solve, or attempt to prevent, financial swindles.
One very common type of fraud in recent years has been the Nigerian 419
scam, which usually involves an unsolicted fax message or letter
requesting assistance in transferring money out of Nigeria in return for
which a share of the money is promised. Such frauds have been going on
since the 1980s and the total amount stolen was estimated to have
reached $5 billion by the year 2000. Brian Wizard, an American
investigative journalist set out to expose the fraudsters and has
written a novel, "Game Over" based on the results of his investigations.
Roy Davies
The Financial Fiction Genre : Banking and Finance in Fiction
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/bankfiction/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pascal Zerling
Roy Davies <roypd...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Socialism is not a doctrine which one normally associates with the
> United States but it did have a certain appeal in the early 20th century
> and Upton Sinlair used his novels as a medium for spreading his
> socialist views. 1907 was a year of widespread bank failures in the
> United States. The following year Sinclair published "The Moneychangers"
> which attacked both the moral corruption and the financial chicanery of
> the bankers and speculators whose actions had precipitated the panic.
> While Upton Sinclair's political opinions would have been shared by only
> a minority of the population the dissatisfaction with the existing
> system that the panic of 1907 engendered did lead to the creation of the
> Federal Reserve System six years later.
>
> At the opposite end of the political spectrum to Upton Sinclair was
> libertarian philosopher and novelist, Ayn Rand. "Atlas Shrugged" is a
> novel celebration of capitalism which Rand saw as the motor of the
> world. In a survey by the Library of Congress in 1991 it was listed
> second only to the Bible as the most influential book in America.
I've heard that Ayn Rand is Federal Reserve Board Chairman
Alan Greenspan's favourite philosopher, and the two knew each
other personally.
Vlorbik
>Alan Greenspan's favourite philosopher, and the two knew each
>other personally.
>
(the "collective" . . . their idea of a joke).
ob.book: _the_ayn_rand_cult_.
reviewed by me:
http://people.delphi.com/vlorbik/tenpage/randcult.html
<A HREF="http://people.delphi.com/vlorbik/tenpage/randcult.html">link</A>
<A HREF="http://people.delphi.com/vlorbik">vlorbik</A>
http://people.delphi.com/vlorbik
Robert Vienneau
> John Kenneth Galbraith is not normally thought of as a novelist but he
> has written two works of fiction, "The Triumph" and "A Tenured
> Professor." I don't know off-hand if Galbraith had any educational
> motives when he wrote his novels (perhaps other users of this newsgroup
> will know) but there are obvious parallels between "A Tenured Professor"
> and some of his books on economics. The principal character is a Harvard
> professor of economics (as is Galbraith, although he is now an emeritus
> professor) who creates an economic forecasting model that identifies
> irrational speculation enabling him to profit from the folly of others.
> The folly of speculators is a recurring theme some of Galbraith's
> writings on economics including "The Great Crash: 1929", first published
> in 1955, and "A Short History of Financial Euphoria" which came out in
> 1990, the year in which his novel about speculation also appeared.
There's a secondary character in "A Tenured Professor" who is more
closely modeled on Galbraith than the hero. This Galbraith-like
character is NOT portrayed glowingly.
You'll want to look up mysteries by somebody writing under the name
"Marshall Jevons." The one I read is definitely genre-work.
I assume the lack of inclusion of Looking Backward and other utopian
stuff was intended to keep the length of your post managable.
--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
Peter Lawrence
.
.
.
> Probably very few people who have watched the film "Wizard of Oz" would
> associate it with monetary theories but there is a view that L. Frank
> Baum's novel is meant partly as an allegorical treatment of the
> arguments in the dispute over the merits of the gold standard versus
> bimetallism in the United States at the end of the 19th century and
> beginning of the 20th. It is claimed that the Yellow Brick Road
> symbolises the gold standard, the silver shoes of the witch represent
> silver coinage, the name Oz supposedly comes from the abbreviation of
> ounce (of gold) and the Cowardly Lion with his loud roar is William
> Jennings Bryan, the unsuccessful candidate in the 1896 presidential
> election.
There is a clear allegory denying the message of the Pilgrim's Progress. I'm
surprised the Wizard of Oz wasn't banned as an irreligious book once people
spotted that. PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS
I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
items on that page for some reasons why.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
vlo...@aol.com (Vlorbik) wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayn Rand didn't stop with her economic predictions in fiction
about the consequences of the socialist take over of America
{ "Atlas Shrugged"}. She also wrote a theory nonfiction book
[ "Capitalism; The Unknown Ideal"] which explained her economic
theories which are a modern version of the Adam Smith economics
made practical for America. She was the only economist in the
world to see and forecast the TOTAL Keynesian economic collapse
of Russian socialism. It occurred around 1990 and the factor of
1000 collapse is TOTAL in anyone's book. Although her theories
are too new for most to understand this record of an "impossible"
economic prediction means that her predictions about the
consequences of socialism on America are being studied carefully.
She also saw people like you coming! Her philosophy of free people
in the American tradition is exactly the opposite of a cult but
she knew the facts wouldn't stop people like you. She wrote at
least one article with a title like; "The Art of the Socialist
Smear". She always stood tall at about 5 feet when she spotted
you SSmen [Socialist Smear Mentality] and your socman [social
manipulation] tactics and strategies. JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pascal Zerling
<jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Ayn Rand didn't stop with her economic predictions in fiction
> about the consequences of the socialist take over of America
> { "Atlas Shrugged"}. She also wrote a theory nonfiction book
> [ "Capitalism; The Unknown Ideal"] which explained her economic
> theories which are a modern version of the Adam Smith economics
> made practical for America. She was the only economist in the
> world to see and forecast the TOTAL Keynesian economic collapse
> of Russian socialism. It occurred around 1990 and the factor of
> 1000 collapse is TOTAL in anyone's book.
First of all, the Soviet system, whatever it was, was not socialism.
Some have called it "capitalism without capitalists". I doubt real
socialism, which is a beautiful idea, is possible. Second, the Soviet
system did not collapse, it was dismantled by the people who ran it.
A very good book was written about this recently by David Kotz
and Fred Weir entitled "Revolution From Above: The demise of
the Soviet System". It's the closest I've seen anyone come in
print to describing what really happened.
As someone who took part in a minor way in the privatization
of a centrally planned economy in one Eastern European country
(I was an "adviser" to my ex-girlfriend, who is an international
lobbyist, and friend of the former prime minister of the country
whose economy her company helped to privatize) I'm in a good
position to tell you these systems did not collapse on their own.
What happened is that Gorbachev introduced perestroika and
glasnost in the late 1980s with the intention of reforming the
Soviet system (with the intention of making it more open and
market-driven, but preserving public ownership of the means
of production). But when the one party system was replaced
by a multiparty system, the old nomenklatura, the elite of the
Communist party in the army and state, realized this would
mean the end of their monopoly on political power. And as
under the old system their prestige was built exclusively on
perks (dachas, holidays in the West, special luxury item
stores), and the law forbid them from owning private property,
they decided the best thing to do would be to dismantle the
centrally planned economy, and move quickly towards
capitalism.
As you said, all this took place in 1990. A group of big factory
managers, apparatchiks, and other members of the
nomenklatura gathered around Boris Yeltsin, who was
the point man to lead the transition to capitalism. But the
elite botched the job horrendously because they actually
believed the Western rhetoric that a market economy works
best with minimal government (in all real Western economies
the state sector makes up nearly half of GDP).
So, they simply privatized all state property quickly, and
most of it was sold at a fraction of its real value to Yeltsin's
cronies. These people are the so-called "oligarchs" of today
like Boris Berezovsky you can read about in the papers.
In some Eastern European countries, such as the one my
ex-girlfriend and I worked in, this process was slower and
more controlled, and today there are some success stories,
such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, where
the economies are actually bigger than they were ten years
ago.
But in Russia and the Ukraine, the rapid privatization of
state property in the absence of the construction of the
necessary public institutions to support a market economy
resulted in economic collapse. Today, ten years later,
the Russian economy is still a fraction of the size it was in
the late 1980s. Millions of people lost their jobs, and in
the resulting social crisis, life expectancy for men has
actually fallen by several years (due to a rise in alcoholism,
suicides, poorer nutrition, etc).
Russia's sad fate is a dire warning about the dangers of
simplistic propaganda about the free market, and "getting
the government off our backs". A mixed economy, with
a strong government, is what a modern industrialized
country needs.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
"Pascal Zerling" <pascal....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
> <jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Ayn Rand didn't stop with her economic predictions in fiction
> > about the consequences of the socialist take over of America
> > { "Atlas Shrugged"}. She also wrote a theory nonfiction book
> > [ "Capitalism; The Unknown Ideal"] which explained her economic
> > theories which are a modern version of the Adam Smith economics
> > made practical for America. She was the only economist in the
> > world to see and forecast the TOTAL Keynesian economic collapse
> > of Russian socialism. It occurred around 1990 and the factor of
> > 1000 collapse is TOTAL in anyone's book.
>
> First of all, the Soviet system, whatever it was, was not socialism.
> Some have called it "capitalism without capitalists". I doubt real
> socialism, which is a beautiful idea, is possible. Second, the Soviet
> system did not collapse, it was dismantled by the people who ran it.
> A very good book was written about this recently by David Kotz
> and Fred Weir entitled "Revolution From Above: The demise of
> the Soviet System". It's the closest I've seen anyone come in
> print to describing what really happened.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that Ayn Rand would agree with some of your observations
about Russian socialism but she would definitely disagree with your
conclusion that a mixed economy, part free and part socialist, is the
right answer for America. In all her work she carefully distinguished
between the free people who produce all the real wealth and the
socialist forces of socialist bureacrats and crooked socialist
politicians and other looters living auf the backs of the average
people. She considered a socialist who lives by taking,taxing,forcing
people was an objectively determined personality type whether a
hitler socialist or a stalin socialist or any of the other types who
have caused so much destruction in the last century. She knew all
about socialist Russia because she escaped from them by lying when
she was twenty years old.
Although she was the only economist to predict the TOTAL collapse
of Russian Keynesianism economics her main concern was that the
socialists would complete the take over of her adopted America from
a mixed economy to a totalitarian socialist society like the German
people elected and endorsed hitler socialism in the 1930s.
Thanks for the book reference. I'd recommend the book "Victory" in
turn because it explains how President Reagan planned and completed
the breakdown of Russian socialism. It wasn't an accidental part of
history. How much of his drive to expose the phony, baloney fraud
{by a factor of 1000} of Russian socialist wealth was due to his
study of the Ayn Rand ART works in Hollywood we may never know.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The facts of your history are largely correct but your terminology
is confused compared to that of Ayn Rand. As you say the power
brokers or socman [social manipulators] always controlled the
Keynesian Russian wealth even going back to the czars and in every
case it was just a name change as you detect; from czar to socialist
party boss to socialist mafia boss. When Ayn Rand talks about
capitalism it is the American model of family business capitalism
with NO socman as the Constitution attempts to protect. Thus America
started from free enterprise capitalism and the enormous wealth
opportunities for average people it entails but at least for the
last century the socialist waves of take over are destroying and
crushing family business capitalism and replacing it with socman.
The Ayn Rand Theories [ART] teaches that the presence of socman
always destroys a society eventually because of the socialist
corruption, whether Rome or the monica presidency.
Your conclusion that a mixed economy like Germany prior to hitler
socialism is the right answer is completely wrong. The American
economy still operates IN SPITE of SOCMAN. People's first reaction
to the huge takings by socman {greater than 60% of average people's
income} is to wotk harder and longer and both parents work and all
the rest but eventually when they understand, like the Russia
Keynesian socialism you describe, that defrauded them by a factor of
1000 in value, that the average people do all the work and the
socialist bosses are living king's free off the special socialist
loot [you called it perks in the special socialist secret stores
and such for the socialist bosses or Gorby's boys] then they find
ways to adjust. Read the Ayn Rand work of ART "Atlas Shrugged".
Also read the book "MIG Pilot" which was written by the pilot who
escaped to Japan and first exposed [late 1960s] the reality of
Russian socialism. At the airbase where he was stationed before
his brave escape [he landed flame out!] they painted the fields
with green paint so the socialist bosses zooming by in their Zill
limousines thought lush crops were growing! See a tiny part of the
socialist fraud?
Good seeing. JD
ted samsel
> Also read the book "MIG Pilot" which was written by the pilot who
> escaped to Japan and first exposed [late 1960s] the reality of
> Russian socialism. At the airbase where he was stationed before
> his brave escape [he landed flame out!] they painted the fields
> with green paint so the socialist bosses zooming by in their Zill
> limousines thought lush crops were growing! See a tiny part of the
> socialist fraud?
Lest we forget:
The capitalist fraud wherein soon-to-be-obsolete strip malls are
built along roadsides to lull the consumers into a sense of well
being and prosperity.
"Can we stop at the snake farm instead of Stuckey's, Dad?"
"Not until we get to the Chainsaw Outlet Mall, Bubba."
--
TBSa...@infi.net
http://home.infi.net/~tbsamsel/
'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
Hank Snow (1914-1999)
THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
Pascal Zerling
<jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I think that Ayn Rand would agree with some of your observations
> about Russian socialism but she would definitely disagree with your
> conclusion that a mixed economy, part free and part socialist, is the
> right answer for America.
A mixed economy, with high taxes, makes possible a strong welfare
state along the Swedish model. Do you prefer the U.S. system,
with no public health care for poor people?
Also, privatization in the West is not driven by any concerns about
economic efficiency, but by the desperation of investors to find new
investment outlets for the massive profits produced by capitalism.
> Thanks for the book reference. I'd recommend the book "Victory" in
> turn because it explains how President Reagan planned and completed
> the breakdown of Russian socialism. It wasn't an accidental part of
> history. How much of his drive to expose the phony, baloney fraud
> {by a factor of 1000} of Russian socialist wealth was due to his
> study of the Ayn Rand ART works in Hollywood we may never know.
The idea of Ronald Reagan planning anything, much less the fall of
the Soviet Union, boggles the mind. But I agree the U.S. government
had a role to play. Western economists advocated "shock therapy"
to Russia, which only made the social crisis worse. Some of them,
like Jeffrey Sachs, now regret their earlier advice.
And of course, it's in the interests of the U.S. government to keep
Russia poor. The poorer it is, the less it can afford to spend on
nuclear weapons. For the time being at least, it looks like Putin is
willing to play along.
> When Ayn Rand talks about
> capitalism it is the American model of family business capitalism
> with NO socman as the Constitution attempts to protect. Thus America
> started from free enterprise capitalism and the enormous wealth
> opportunities for average people it entails but at least for the
> last century the socialist waves of take over are destroying and
> crushing family business capitalism and replacing it with socman.
I agree with you that the 19th century economy of small family firms
was replaced during the 20th century by today's system of giant
companies. But this system is now the basis of our collective
wealth. How do you propose to turn back the clock?
I also think the system would be in crisis without government
help. As shown e.g. by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy in
"Monopoly Capital", the giant companies, by colluding on prices,
produce an in-built tendency towards economic stagnation
that makes government support necessary. But what would
you do, take away that support and cause an economic
depression worse than that of the 1930s?
From my social democratic point of view, we must live with
the economic system we've got, but use more government
spending not just on companies, but on protecting the
environment, and helping ordinary working people and the
poor.
Ron Peterson
: Thanks for the book reference. I'd recommend the book "Victory" in
: turn because it explains how President Reagan planned and completed
: the breakdown of Russian socialism.
Who is the author and what is the exact title?
Ron
bgue...@my-deja.com
>
> What happened is that Gorbachev introduced perestroika and
> glasnost in the late 1980s with the intention of reforming the
> Soviet system (with the intention of making it more open and
> market-driven, but preserving public ownership of the means
> of production). But when the one party system was replaced
> by a multiparty system, the old nomenklatura, the elite of the
> Communist party in the army and state, realized this would
> mean the end of their monopoly on political power. And as
> under the old system their prestige was built exclusively on
> perks (dachas, holidays in the West, special luxury item
> stores), and the law forbid them from owning private property,
> they decided the best thing to do would be to dismantle the
> centrally planned economy, and move quickly towards
> capitalism.
>
This implies that all was well apart from a nomenklatura fear of
political liberalization. This is factually incorrect. The USSR had
been engaged negative capital formation and stagnant GDP growth since
the 70's. The fact that the system was not _critically_ ill in 1990 in
no way disproves the fact that it was sick. Gorbachev's reforms simply
pushed a chronically ill patient into an acute condition.
> As you said, all this took place in 1990. A group of big factory
> managers, apparatchiks, and other members of the
> nomenklatura gathered around Boris Yeltsin, who was
> the point man to lead the transition to capitalism. But the
> elite botched the job horrendously because they actually
> believed the Western rhetoric that a market economy works
> best with minimal government (in all real Western economies
> the state sector makes up nearly half of GDP).
>
This is also incorrect. Public consumption for modern economies tends
to run at about 20% of GDP, while public _production_ of GDP is
miniscule. What you are talking about is government spending _as a %
of_ GDP, which is another kettle of fish and may mostly be waste for
all you know.
> So, they simply privatized all state property quickly, and
> most of it was sold at a fraction of its real value to Yeltsin's
> cronies. These people are the so-called "oligarchs" of today
> like Boris Berezovsky you can read about in the papers.
>
This part is true.
> ago.
>
> But in Russia and the Ukraine, the rapid privatization of
> state property in the absence of the construction of the
> necessary public institutions to support a market economy
> resulted in economic collapse.
This is also true, but has nothing to do with the _size_ of
government. It has to do with institutions, civil society and proper
enforcement of laws, none of which has much to do with public
consumption of GDP.
> Russia's sad fate is a dire warning about the dangers of
> simplistic propaganda about the free market, and "getting
> the government off our backs". A mixed economy, with
> a strong government, is what a modern industrialized
> country needs.
>
>
This is once again incorrect. What a modern economy needs is
transparency, consistent application of laws and taxation and
enforceable propert rights. These are terribly imporatant and were
ignored by the Western pundits in the USSR, but none of them have
anything to do with a mixed economy. Please tell me you didn't
_really_ advise anybody......
Richard Harter
wrote:
>jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> Also read the book "MIG Pilot" which was written by the pilot who
>> escaped to Japan and first exposed [late 1960s] the reality of
>> Russian socialism. At the airbase where he was stationed before
>> his brave escape [he landed flame out!] they painted the fields
>> with green paint so the socialist bosses zooming by in their Zill
>> limousines thought lush crops were growing! See a tiny part of the
>> socialist fraud?
>
>Lest we forget:
> The capitalist fraud wherein soon-to-be-obsolete strip malls are
>built along roadsides to lull the consumers into a sense of well
>being and prosperity.
>
>"Can we stop at the snake farm instead of Stuckey's, Dad?"
>
>"Not until we get to the Chainsaw Outlet Mall, Bubba."
Well said, sir. What I want to know is why Kagalenko isn't in this
debate explaining why everyone is wrong.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
Q: How do you make five pounds of fat attractive?
A: Put a nipple on it.
Pascal Zerling
<bgue...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> The USSR had
> been engaged negative capital formation and stagnant GDP growth since
> the 70's. The fact that the system was not _critically_ ill in 1990 in
> no way disproves the fact that it was sick.
I never said it wasn't sick. I said nothing about the state of the Soviet
economy during the late 1980s except that it did not collapse on its
own. And while I claim no particular expertise on the economy of
the Soviet Union, I'm also aware of the fact that its economic
growth had been slowing down since the 1970s.
What I do claim is that the system as it existed in the late 1980s
was still able to provide basic goods and services. The present
system does not. It would have been better to introduce reforms
slowly than to just privatize everything immediately.
> > (in all real Western economies the state sector makes up
> > nearly half of GDP).
> This is also incorrect. Public consumption for modern economies tends
> to run at about 20% of GDP, while public _production_ of GDP is
> miniscule. What you are talking about is government spending _as a %
> of_ GDP, which is another kettle of fish and may mostly be waste for
> all you know.
That's what I meant to say, and your correction of my loose phrasing
is well taken.
> > But in Russia and the Ukraine, the rapid privatization of
> > state property in the absence of the construction of the
> > necessary public institutions to support a market economy
> > resulted in economic collapse.
>
> This is also true, but has nothing to do with the _size_ of
> government. It has to do with institutions, civil society and proper
> enforcement of laws, none of which has much to do with public
> consumption of GDP.
I did not claim that the legal, political and other institutions
necessary for a market economy to function are connected in
any way with the size of government spending. But quite
independently from this, I also hold the view that no Western
economy could avoid a serious depression without
maintaining government spending at present levels.
This is based on my belief that the oligopoly pricing mechanism,
which tends to be nearly universal in the big business sector,
causes a long-term trend of economic stagnation. This theory
is defended by a tradition of economists that includes
Michal Kalecki, Josef Steindl, Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy.
I know this theory is not popular in our neo-liberal age, but
I think it's the only way to make sense of the gradual but
persistent slowdown in average rates of economic growth
in the West since around 1970.
There is, of course, no way to prove theories about long-term
economic growth. But some respected economists today, such
as Keith Cowling, professor of economics at Warwick
Univerity in the UK, also defend this theory.
That I did not mention laws and other public institutions does
not mean that I don't think they are necessary. But civil society
is another matter, and takes a long time to develop. You seem
to suggest that there is some magical way of suddenly
manufacturing a large middle class, a range of respectable
political parties, churches and so on, which is of course false.
> > Russia's sad fate is a dire warning about the dangers of
> > simplistic propaganda about the free market, and "getting
> > the government off our backs". A mixed economy, with
> > a strong government, is what a modern industrialized
> > country needs.
>
> This is once again incorrect. What a modern economy needs is
> transparency, consistent application of laws and taxation and
> enforceable propert rights. These are terribly imporatant and were
> ignored by the Western pundits in the USSR, but none of them have
> anything to do with a mixed economy. Please tell me you didn't
> _really_ advise anybody......
Now you're just spouting invective.Your belief that all a modern
economy needs is transparency and a legal framework that
includes property rights, is your own political view, and you're
perfectly entitled to hold it.
My view is that this is the minimal requirement, yes, but that
today's economies in the West could not avoid a depression
unless government spending is maintained at present levels.
Please explain to me what you think would happen to the U.S.
economy or economies in Western Europe if government
spending were suddenly reduced to zero.
bgue...@my-deja.com
>
> My view is that this is the minimal requirement, yes, but that
> today's economies in the West could not avoid a depression
> unless government spending is maintained at present levels.
> Please explain to me what you think would happen to the U.S.
> economy or economies in Western Europe if government
> spending were suddenly reduced to zero.
>
>
_Suddenly_? Like tomorrow? Probably exactly as you said, a deep
recession of some sort. But this is to be expected considering the
level of shcok you just exposed the entire system to. All kinds of
long-term contracts shattered, government pensions wiped-out, etc. Not
to mention that _some_ market inefficiencies do exist out there, so a
100% drop in spending implies that some necessities go unmet. Problems
galore.
Now, a gradual withdrawal of government taxation and spending down to
maybe 50% of current levels? Not too bad, IMHO. The long-term decline
in growth-rates that you mentioned have occurred in tandem with with a
long-term _increase_ in the % of GDP disposed of by government. On the
other hand, the short-term increase in US growth rates experienced
during the last decade have been accompanied by a climate that strongly
frowns upon governmental growth (even if this has tended to mean
holding the size of the government steady while claiming loudly that
you're shrinking it.) The second example hasn't been around long
enough to prove anything, _yet_, but at the least it provides counter-
evidence to your argument.
Other possible reasons for the stagnation of growth? The long-run
decline in the growth of labor inputs (particularly in Europe.) Crummy
savings rates (although Japan would seem to be a counter-example.)
Misdirection of investment due to poor regulation (of which Japan would
seem to be a good example.) Diminishing returns and/or regression to
the mean. There are all kinds of possibilities. My objection is to
picking one that seems to have plenty of evidence against it and
offering it up as an example. Out of the frying pan and into the fire
for the Russians, so to speak....
Bernard Guerero
jddescr...@my-deja.com
ro...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson) wrote:
> jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : Thanks for the book reference. I'd recommend the book "Victory" in
> : turn because it explains how President Reagan planned and completed
> : the breakdown of Russian socialism.
>
> Who is the author and what is the exact title?
>
> Ron
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The book is "Victory; The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy
That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union" by Peter Schweizer
,published by Atlantic Monthly Press in 1994. President Reagan had
an elaborate plan worked out before taking office in 1980 to reveal
the Russian socialist fraud. You may remember that some cracks were
beginning to show around the edges [now seen in retrospect] like the
socialist bosses in Poland running out of gas for their limousines.
As early as May 1981 in a speech before students at Notre Dame
University President Reagan said "The west will not contain communism
it will transcend communism. We will not bother to denounce it we will
dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages
are now being written." Of course the American socialist Keynesian
economists like Lester Thurow at MIT were claiming into the last part
of the 1980s that economic command [read socialism]...can accelerate
and compress the growth process. [as illustrasted with socialist
certainty in Russia] see page xv. He not only couldn't see the factor
of 1000 phony, balony socialist wealth bubble he was still telling us
the socialist BIG LIE that in every way, every day the socialists
were getting bigger and better. They got away with it for many years
in spite of the clear warnings and explainations from Ayn Rand!
I also recommend her fact finding testimony before the House UnAmerican
Activities Commitee about the socialist propoganda films to deceive
Americans with more BIG LIES.
Good seeing. JD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
roypd...@my-deja.com
Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>
>
> There's a secondary character in "A Tenured Professor" who is more
> closely modeled on Galbraith than the hero. This Galbraith-like
> character is NOT portrayed glowingly.
>
> You'll want to look up mysteries by somebody writing under the name
> "Marshall Jevons." The one I read is definitely genre-work.
>
> I assume the lack of inclusion of Looking Backward and other utopian
> stuff was intended to keep the length of your post managable.
>
>
Space was one reason for not mentioning Edward Bellamy in my original
message but the main one was that I was discussing fiction that had an
educational purpose. (By "education" I also included what some people
might regard as being "propaganda"). However I do mention other authors
of fiction whose work is relevant to finance (irrespective of whether or
not it was written with education in mind) in the website whose URL is
given at the end of this message. Edward Bellamy is mentioned in the
page on science fiction.
I am not certain if Galbraith wrote his second novel with any
educational purpose in mind but I included it in my previous message
because of parallels with his non-fiction. Thanks for your comments on
Galbraith's novel and for drawing my attention to the work of "Marshall
Jevons" i.e. William Breit and Kenneth G. Elzinga. Their work is
definitely relevant and I have added a paragraph about it to one of the
pages at my website. I will also have to get hold of some of their books
and read them now!
--
Stephen Hayes
jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote in a message to All:
jm> From: jddescr...@my-deja.com
jm> Although she was the only economist to predict the TOTAL collapse
jm> of Russian Keynesianism economics her main concern was that the
jm> socialists would complete the take over of her adopted America from
jm> a mixed economy to a totalitarian socialist society like the German
jm> people elected and endorsed hitler socialism in the 1930s.
Ayn Rand, economist....
fits right in with
Adolf Hitler, political scientist
Keep well
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail: haye...@yahoo.com
FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
http://www.fmlynet.org
jddescr...@my-deja.com
> > escaped to Japan and first exposed [late 1960s] the reality of
> > Russian socialism. At the airbase where he was stationed before
> > his brave escape [he landed flame out!] they painted the fields
> > with green paint so the socialist bosses zooming by in their Zill
> > limousines thought lush crops were growing! See a tiny part of the
> > socialist fraud?
>
> The capitalist fraud wherein soon-to-be-obsolete strip malls are
> built along roadsides to lull the consumers into a sense of well
> being and prosperity.
>
> "Can we stop at the snake farm instead of Stuckey's, Dad?"
>
> "Not until we get to the Chainsaw Outlet Mall, Bubba."
> TBSa...@infi.net
> http://home.infi.net/~tbsamsel/
> 'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
> Hank Snow (1914-1999)
> THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The same referenced MIG Pilot book reveals that they used pure
alcohol in the MIG-25s so they could have permanent drunken
parties in amongst the lush green fields.
Your point that socialist sleeze or the SSmen [Socialist Sleeze
mentality] is not confined to the Russian Keynesian socialists
is well taken but the critical issue that the Ayn Rand Theory [ART]
identifies is how large is the socman [social manipulator] presence.
Usually when there are free market choices available then the SSmen
scams can only run so far before they collapse and disappear. In the
case of the Russian socialists they took over total socialist control
in 1917 and they continued and built up the scam for over 70 years.
They built the scam to a false socialist wealth value multiplier of
1000. Only Ayn Rand saw that the socialist scam would end in total
economic collapse. Many Americans, including myself, were unprepared
for the reality of the socialist bubble collapse because of the
various BIG LIES that the socialists were shilling. For example after
a visit to Russia in 1982 Arthur Schlesinger said; "...those in the
U.S. who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and
social collapse, ready with one small push to go over the brink
are ....only kidding themselves." Similarly that notarious Keynesian
socialist John Kenneth Galbraith said in 1984; "The Russian system
succeeeds because, in contrast to the western industrial economies,
it makes full use of it's manpower." See the referenced book [VICTORY]
for other quotes from the Keynesian socialists who totally command the
world economies illustrating that they were not only blind but
deliberate socialist propogandists for the Russian socialism. It's
only with such a concerted socialist policy that the factor of 1000
can happen. Ayn Rand identified many similar socialist take over
processes in America such as the school system with huge cost per
student and almost no free people education as run by socialists.
Good seeing. JD
John J Weatherby
There is a least some truth to this. In Capitalism the Unknown idea
there is actually a chapter or maybe two written by Greenspan many years
supporting a gold standard!!!! I am don't how well they knew each other but
there must be some link in there work for Rand to publish a essay by
Greenspan in her book.
John
John J Weatherby
Actually a couple of Marshall Jevons' books used to be required reading
for microeconomic courses at my university. I believe the main character in
both was Harry or Henry Spearman, an economist. These were used for the
writing component of the course. I believe the standard assignment was to
write an essay showing a few examples of economics in the book and explain
and evaluate them. It was kind of fun for some of the students and gave them
some slightly little less dry model/empirics examples. I think in some cases
it may have helped them to undersantd the course a bit better.
John
> You'll want to look up mysteries by somebody writing under the name
> "Marshall Jevons." The one I read is definitely genre-work.
>
> I assume the lack of inclusion of Looking Backward and other utopian
> stuff was intended to keep the length of your post managable.
>
jimC
> I've heard that Ayn Rand is Federal Reserve Board Chairman
> Alan Greenspan's favourite philosopher, and the two knew each
> other personally.
Quite. He was part of her inner circle, and wrote economics
articles for _The Objectivist_ and one of her books, _Capitalism:
the Unknown Ideal_. I don't know that she remains on his
pedestal.
jimC
cladatps
THE REAL WORLD.
Demanding everyone adhere to the demands of Natural Law (reality),
Capitalism, and America's Constitution would purge the real world of
indigent, homeless, starving, poverty-stricken, parasites that have to steal
to live in THE REAL WORLD.
Go to www.cladatps.com for details.
"_Al" <NotVa...@nym.com> wrote in message
news:3a075fa2...@news-west.newscene.com...
> Yes, there are many books both fiction and non-fiction that are based on
what
> the author vision of the world should be. The difference between science
and
> literature is that science deals with what is - the reality we live in.
> I'll let you argue over Marx is vision of the "Brave New World" is better
or
> worse than Ayn Rand vision.
> _Al
> http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xAE412F7B
jddescr...@my-deja.com
"Pascal Zerling" <pascal....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
> <jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that Ayn Rand would agree with some of your observations
> > about Russian socialism but she would definitely disagree with your
> > conclusion that a mixed economy, part free and part socialist, is
the
> > right answer for America.
>
> A mixed economy, with high taxes, makes possible a strong welfare
> state along the Swedish model. Do you prefer the U.S. system,
> with no public health care for poor people?
>
> Also, privatization in the West is not driven by any concerns about
> economic efficiency, but by the desperation of investors to find new
> investment outlets for the massive profits produced by capitalism.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
High taxing/taking means high violence because the Ayn Rand Theory
[ART] observes that few like to be taken. If you look carefully you
will find that those who advocate ever increasing takings are living
auf the socialist bureacratic structure and the more taxing loot
means bigger perks for them. It is of course true, that people can
live/exist under authoritarian rulers. The 100 generations of dark
ages king's men rule that ART is concerned with had a human population
but it was a brief and hard life for most of the serfs. Certainly
Sweeden can live as a captive of the king's men as can Tibet to pick
two of the most benign of the socialist ruled countries. I'm sure you
know that neither of them can or could even defend themselves from
invasion and occupation. My relatives escaped from the Swedish king's
men in the 1800s but maybe those who stayed are happy with the
socialist FIX on everything? I doubt it but don't know for sure.
You don't seem to appreciate family business and profits. With a free
market economy the net efficiency is optimized by the votes of the
purchasers and the suppliers. In every exchange they both experience a
good profit or they wouldn't do it. Maybe you are thinking of socialist
manipulations [socman] of the economy where it is socialist connections
that matter with the crooked socialist politicians or the king's
licensed [corpman] king's laws.
You also seem unfamiliar with the socialist take over in America.
Every person has over 15% of every dollar of income taken for a social
security trust fund pension and medical insurance program [medicare].
Because these programs are such masive takings with unfair pay back
[no return until age 68 and no trusted savings for the
family] there will be socialist problems as people recognize what is
happening. Part of the apparent brilliance of the socialist
manipulators is that they have average people running so hard to just
survive that they have no time to investigate the true takings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Thanks for the book reference. I'd recommend the book "Victory" in
> > turn because it explains how President Reagan planned and completed
> > the breakdown of Russian socialism. It wasn't an accidental part of
> > history. How much of his drive to expose the phony, baloney fraud
> > {by a factor of 1000} of Russian socialist wealth was due to his
> > study of the Ayn Rand ART works in Hollywood we may never know.
>
> The idea of Ronald Reagan planning anything, much less the fall of
> the Soviet Union, boggles the mind. But I agree the U.S. government
> had a role to play. Western economists advocated "shock therapy"
> to Russia, which only made the social crisis worse. Some of them,
> like Jeffrey Sachs, now regret their earlier advice.
>
> And of course, it's in the interests of the U.S. government to keep
> Russia poor. The poorer it is, the less it can afford to spend on
> nuclear weapons. For the time being at least, it looks like Putin is
> willing to play along.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like you bought the stories that President Reagan
was a dumb farm boy. In reality he was one of the most principled
and insightful free people leaders the world has ever seen. He
personally planned and wrote the speeches and such for his election
as California governor and then President. He personally organized
the national TV address to America "A Time For Choosing" which went
down as a huge defeat of Barry Goldwater by johnson. The simple minded
stories you hear from the socman are not always anywhere near the truth.
------------------------------------------------------------------
> > When Ayn Rand talks about
> > capitalism it is the American model of family business capitalism
> > with NO socman as the Constitution attempts to protect. Thus America
> > started from free enterprise capitalism and the enormous wealth
> > opportunities for average people it entails but at least for the
> > last century the socialist waves of take over are destroying and
> > crushing family business capitalism and replacing it with socman.
>
> I agree with you that the 19th century economy of small family firms
> was replaced during the 20th century by today's system of giant
> companies. But this system is now the basis of our collective
> wealth. How do you propose to turn back the clock?
>
> I also think the system would be in crisis without government
> help. As shown e.g. by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy in
> "Monopoly Capital", the giant companies, by colluding on prices,
> produce an in-built tendency towards economic stagnation
> that makes government support necessary. But what would
> you do, take away that support and cause an economic
> depression worse than that of the 1930s?
>
> From my social democratic point of view, we must live with
> the economic system we've got, but use more government
> spending not just on companies, but on protecting the
> environment, and helping ordinary working people and the
> poor.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ART tells us that once the socialist idea ; it's alright(moral)
to use aggressive force for "good" purposes {altruism} is
accepted then the slide into totalitarian socialist dictatorship
is long underway. Stopping socialism doesn't stop you from helping
anyone you wish to but not with loot you have taken from others by
force/fear/fraud [Fing]. Socialists love force and I think we can
easily see why and why it is key to the ART understandings and
predictions.
What Ayn Rand told us is that if we don't stop and roll back the
socialist take over of the free people model nation; America then
we will return instead to another dark ages of socialist/king's men
rule. Russia is just a precursor from her analysis and you still
have't answered how they were able to blow up the advertised value
of their socialist weath by a factor of 1000 and keep the bubble up for
70 years? The element of the "impossible" surpise [ I call them them
KIng's Surprise or KIS in my models and simulations] is what Ayn Rand
was trying to communicate with "Atlas Shrugged".
She could be wrong about the surprise collapse of the American economy
as the socialist take over is completed? I thought she was wrong about
the Russian total economic collapse! Live and learn!
Good seeing. JD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pascal Zerling
<jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ud5j1$sif$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> High taxing/taking means high violence because the Ayn Rand Theory
> [ART] observes that few like to be taken.
But all governments are based on the monopolization of the
legitimate use of force. Civilized life would be impossible without
law enforcement.
> If you look carefully you
> will find that those who advocate ever increasing takings are living
> auf the socialist bureacratic structure and the more taxing loot
> means bigger perks for them.
Wrong. Leftwing parties advocate higher taxes, and the supporters
of leftwing parties are overwhelmingly members of the working class.
How tax proceeds are spent is another matter, and I advocate
more social spending, not less.
> Sweeden can live as a captive of the king's men as can Tibet to pick
> two of the most benign of the socialist ruled countries. I'm sure you
> know that neither of them can or could even defend themselves from
> invasion and occupation. My relatives escaped from the Swedish king's
> men in the 1800s but maybe those who stayed are happy with the
> socialist FIX on everything? I doubt it but don't know for sure.
Sweden is not as different from the U.S. as you think. You should
visit it. I'm going there for the weekend in two weeks myself.
Sweden has a large and well-equipped defence force, including
a substantial airforce, and could put up a good fight if invaded.
Sweden doesn't have a socialist fix on everything. It has a healthy
market economy, with a high standard of living. I'm sure you've
heard of Volvo cars? What makes it different from the U.S. is
the conviction of the people that it is worth paying high taxes
for public services unavailable in the U.S. such as free higher
education and universal health care.
> It sounds like you bought the stories that President Reagan
> was a dumb farm boy. In reality he was one of the most principled
> and insightful free people leaders the world has ever seen. He
> personally planned and wrote the speeches and such for his election
> as California governor and then President.
It has always been difficult for Europeans to appreciate the appeal
of Ronald Reagan as president. I think this is because we don't
see that he was more a moral leader, not a hands on executive.
But the policies carried out by his administration led to a vast
redistribution of wealth in favour of the rich, and this I cannot
support.
> ART tells us that once the socialist idea ; it's alright(moral)
> to use aggressive force for "good" purposes {altruism} is
> accepted then the slide into totalitarian socialist dictatorship
> is long underway.
There is a big difference between totalitarianism and social
democracy. Totalitarianism is based on the abolition of the
rule of law. Social democracy is based on redistribution of
wealth in favour of the poor.
> Stopping socialism doesn't stop you from helping
> anyone you wish to but not with loot you have taken from others by
> force/fear/fraud [Fing].
Charity alone is not enough.
> Russia is just a precursor from her analysis and you still
> have't answered how they were able to blow up the advertised value
> of their socialist weath by a factor of 1000 and keep the bubble up for
> 70 years?
I don't know what all this factor of 1000 business is about, but the
principles of the centrally planned economy are not too difficult
to grasp. The Soviet system was pretty good at heavy industrial
production but failed to keep up with the pace of technological
change in the West. Why did it last so long? Well, I imagine
lots of weird social systems could be made to last for some
time.
I think Soviet totalitarianism was a terrible system because it took
away the basic political rights of citizens. The best thing about the
present system in Russia is that it grants people these rights. But
the economy is in shambles, with a large fraction of transactions
carried out by barter trade. The latest news, however, is positive,
as higher oil prices are good for the oil industry, and foreign
investment is now flowing in. I think economic growth this year
will be the highest in years. Let's hope it will continue!
jddescr...@my-deja.com
"Pascal Zerling" <pascal....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
> <jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8ud5j1$sif$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > High taxing/taking means high violence because the Ayn Rand Theory
> > [ART] observes that few like to be taken.
>
> legitimate use of force. Civilized life would be impossible without
> law enforcement.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First it is more subtle than that. How well defended is each
individual familie's wealth assets by themselves, for starters?
Without good self defense such as the US 2nd Ammendment then all
the rest collapses. This is true world wide because as long as
people can migrate to the US the other societies have to protect
rights to some extent. Then at the next level of free people
rights; how well does the local police act to defend these
rights and finally how well does the national structure of
democratic/republic rights act as long term defense of justice?
This is all about free people rights or free people laws. When
the king's men [king's mentality or socialists] are in rule
rather than the free people laws there are king's laws. For
example socialist Russia has/had every law you might want to
name but they all are king's laws. Thus the legitimate, good
government [such as the Ayn Rand Theories [ART]] monopoly you
speak of only applies to long term free people rights defense
in a good free people society.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > If you look carefully you
> > will find that those who advocate ever increasing takings are living
> > auf the socialist bureacratic structure and the more taxing loot
> > means bigger perks for them.
>
> Wrong. Leftwing parties advocate higher taxes, and the supporters
> of leftwing parties are overwhelmingly members of the working class.
> How tax proceeds are spent is another matter, and I advocate
> more social spending, not less.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We're back to the socialist BIG LIE. Yes many people are convinced
that the crooked socialist politicians will steal extra wealth and
give it to them but is it true? In the US the socialist politicians
give themselves giant pensions while the massive "contributions" of
the average people to their trusted pensions yeilds almost no return
on investment. People are thus deceived but ART says that truth outs!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Sweeden can live as a captive of the king's men as can Tibet to pick
> > two of the most benign of the socialist ruled countries. I'm sure
> > you
> > know that neither of them can or could even defend themselves from
> > invasion and occupation. My relatives escaped from the Swedish
> > king's
> > men in the 1800s but maybe those who stayed are happy with the
> > socialist FIX on everything? I doubt it but don't know for sure.
>
> Sweden is not as different from the U.S. as you think. You should
> visit it. I'm going there for the weekend in two weeks myself.
> Sweden has a large and well-equipped defence force, including
> a substantial airforce, and could put up a good fight if invaded.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking of the reality facts of the German invasion in WW II.
Neither the Swedish king or the socialist complexion of the partial
democracy saved them { nor the Air Force} from the invasion and
occupation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sweden doesn't have a socialist fix on everything. It has a healthy
> market economy, with a high standard of living. I'm sure you've
> heard of Volvo cars? What makes it different from the U.S. is
> the conviction of the people that it is worth paying high taxes
> for public services unavailable in the U.S. such as free higher
> education and universal health care.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know the details of the Swedish economy but I would expect
that a close look would show a false society based on natural
resource exploitation very similar to the Russian Keynesian society.
Remember the factor of 1000 KIS [KIng's Surprise] in Russia revealed
- see below. Does Sweden sell raw materials such as mineralss and oil?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > It sounds like you bought the stories that President Reagan
> > was a dumb farm boy. In reality he was one of the most principled
> > and insightful free people leaders the world has ever seen. He
> > personally planned and wrote the speeches and such for his election
> > as California governor and then President.
>
> It has always been difficult for Europeans to appreciate the appeal
> of Ronald Reagan as president. I think this is because we don't
> see that he was more a moral leader, not a hands on executive.
> But the policies carried out by his administration led to a vast
> redistribution of wealth in favour of the rich, and this I cannot
> support.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just the opposite is true if you look at all the new family business
capitalism starts when it appreared that the Reagan revolution was
going to get the socman [social manipulator] auf the backs of the
American people. Those real hopes for averqage people only lasted
until the socialist forces were reelected in 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ART tells us that once the socialist idea ; it's alright(moral)
> > to use aggressive force for "good" purposes {altruism} is
> > accepted then the slide into totalitarian socialist dictatorship
> > is long underway.
>
> There is a big difference between totalitarianism and social
> democracy. Totalitarianism is based on the abolition of the
> rule of law. Social democracy is based on redistribution of
> wealth in favour of the poor.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The most obvious example we have is when the socialist parties in
Germany won the election and then hitler took totalitarian dictator
control. 95 % of the German people approved of the take over in a
referendum afterwards. How do you explain this as socialism you
approve of or is this like you said of Russia not real socialism?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Stopping socialism doesn't stop you from helping
> > anyone you wish to but not with loot you have taken from others by
> > force/fear/fraud [Fing].
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Charity alone is not enough.
>
You now are admitting that you must use force to take what
you want and it can't be a free voluntary system as the United Staes
DECLARATION and Constitution was organized. Can't you see how this
taking/taxing/forcing always leads to war as Ayn Rand taught?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Russia is just a precursor from her analysis and you still
> > have't answered how they were able to blow up the advertised value
> > of their socialist weath by a factor of 1000 and keep the bubble up
for
> > 70 years?
>
> I don't know what all this factor of 1000 business is about, but the
> principles of the centrally planned economy are not too difficult
> to grasp. The Soviet system was pretty good at heavy industrial
> production but failed to keep up with the pace of technological
> change in the West. Why did it last so long? Well, I imagine
> lots of weird social systems could be made to last for some
> time.
>
> I think Soviet totalitarianism was a terrible system because it took
> away the basic political rights of citizens. The best thing about the
> present system in Russia is that it grants people these rights. But
> the economy is in shambles, with a large fraction of transactions
> carried out by barter trade. The latest news, however, is positive,
> as higher oil prices are good for the oil industry, and foreign
> investment is now flowing in. I think economic growth this year
> will be the highest in years. Let's hope it will continue!
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From your previous comments I thought you were aware of what has
happened in Russia. The following are all reality numbers which
you can check out if you find someone who will speak the truth.
Remember that they built the Keynesian socialist bubble up by a
factor of 1000 over reality over a more than 70 year period so
the socialist BIG LIE is an important element in their story. Only
Ayn Rand, could see the "impossible" TOTAL economic collapse coming.
The factor of 1000 is most clearly seen in the value of the rubble
to the US dollar over a period such as 1987 - 1992. In the US we
used to hear about the tremendous number of technical socialists
being graduated in Russia. The story was that they had buried US
in their spectacular accomplishments. When President Reagan exposed
their phony balony socialist BIG LIE with - tear down this socman
wall mister gorby - then the average Russian academic socialist
saw their savings in the socialist savings bank collapse from 1000
units to 1 (one) unit. Thus 999 units were lost for each 1000 that
the academic socialist had in their account. Today many of these
specialists are still making less than 100 dollars US per month
salary in their academic socialist position if they are paid at
all for the phony balony value they produce. Of course, the top
socialist bosses got their loot out of Russia as real wealth early.
When the final collapse happened every shippment of US taxpayer
money to Russia was immediately stolen by the socialist bosses
in transfers to their offshore accounts.
You mentioned that where was some reality to their raw materials
industrial production and that is true. It is [like oil, diamonds,
gold, and such] what the socialist bosses stipped out of the nation.
An example that I like to site is titanium. They, of course, have
the most massive titanium mines and processing plants in the world.
One of their conversion projects is selling titanium crowbars in US
hardware stores for next to nothing. All part of the socialist BIG LIE.
Good seeing. JD
Micke
jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Sweeden can live as a captive of the king's men as can Tibet to
pick
> > > two of the most benign of the socialist ruled countries. I'm sure
> > > you
> > > know that neither of them can or could even defend themselves from
> > > invasion and occupation. My relatives escaped from the Swedish
> > > king's
> > > men in the 1800s but maybe those who stayed are happy with the
> > > socialist FIX on everything? I doubt it but don't know for sure.
>
> >
> > Sweden is not as different from the U.S. as you think. You should
> > visit it. I'm going there for the weekend in two weeks myself.
> > Sweden has a large and well-equipped defence force, including
> > a substantial airforce, and could put up a good fight if invaded.
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I was thinking of the reality facts of the German invasion in WW II.
> Neither the Swedish king or the socialist complexion of the partial
> democracy saved them { nor the Air Force} from the invasion and
> occupation.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Let me guess... You're an American?
Sweden has had 186 years, 2 months and 27 days of peace, and was NOT
invaded during WWII. The defence forces, after WWII, were planned and
outfitted at such a level that the Soviet Union would lose much more
than it gained if they invaded. After the cold war Sweden's forces have
of course been cut down, but are still capable of deterring its
neighbours from an armed attack.
>
> > Sweden doesn't have a socialist fix on everything. It has a healthy
> > market economy, with a high standard of living. I'm sure you've
> > heard of Volvo cars? What makes it different from the U.S. is
> > the conviction of the people that it is worth paying high taxes
> > for public services unavailable in the U.S. such as free higher
> > education and universal health care.
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't know the details of the Swedish economy but I would expect
> that a close look would show a false society based on natural
> resource exploitation very similar to the Russian Keynesian society.
> Remember the factor of 1000 KIS [KIng's Surprise] in Russia revealed
> - see below. Does Sweden sell raw materials such as mineralss and oil?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweden export a lot of iron and timber, but has no oil findings of
class. Most of the exports are however refined products from the large
engineering sector. Not that strange as no other country spend as much
on R&D, and no country has as many patents per capita. Industrial
output per capita is lower in Sweden than in the US, but if we
calculate output per capita per working hour, Sweden has a higher
productivity. In other words, the Swedes have traded some output for
free time.
Sweden is a capitalist country with a selection of public services that
are paid by taxes. The nordic view is that defence, education,
healthcare etc are things that everybody need, and therefore something
that's worth paying taxes for.
r_kar...@my-deja.com
Micke <mick...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<snippetisnip>
>
> Sweden has had 186 years, 2 months and 27 days of peace, and was NOT
> invaded during WWII. The defence forces, after WWII, were planned and
> outfitted at such a level that the Soviet Union would lose much more
> than it gained if they invaded. After the cold war Sweden's forces
>have
> of course been cut down, but are still capable of deterring its
> neighbours from an armed attack.
I guess even most Swedes don't know that we actually had the planet's
fourth largest air force between 1945-1965. Most likely the most modern
too, of course.
Francis Muir
r_kar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <8uil2h$bju$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Micke <mick...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> <snippetisnip>
>
> >
> > Sweden has had 186 years, 2 months and 27 days of peace, and was NOT
> > invaded during WWII. The defence forces, after WWII, were planned and
> > outfitted at such a level that the Soviet Union would lose much more
> > than it gained if they invaded. After the cold war Sweden's forces
> >have
> > of course been cut down, but are still capable of deterring its
> > neighbours from an armed attack.
>
> I guess even most Swedes don't know that we actually had the planet's
> fourth largest air force between 1945-1965. Most likely the most modern
> too, of course.
The planes built by the company that gave us the 3-cylinder Saab Sonnett.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
-------------Inserted, see original-----------------------------------
I apologize for my poor history. I guess I was thinking of Norway
which had some type of "accomodation" with the hitler socialists of WW
II in order to avoid complete take over by Germany. I was thinking that
the Swedish situation was similar rather than the Swiss case of too
expensive for a hitler socialism invasion. Do I have this correct? [I
guess Norway is also the society supporting socialism with massive oil
exports!] Certainly France split into for and against hitler socialism
factions. The main point of economic distinction that I was trying to
draw between the European structures and the American stucture, that
Ayn Rand wrote about in "Atlas Shrugged", is the idea of independent
family business capitalism as opposed to the giant collectives of
socialism whether called cartels or corporations or STATE CAPITALISM or
whatever. The dynamics of economic resilience and the "impossible"
socialist bubble economic collapse that she predicted for Russian
Keynesian socialism [and we have now observed in reality] is very
different.
Good seeing. JD
------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Luxembourg
> In article <8uil2h$bju$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Micke <mick...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
Strike one.
>
> I apologize for my poor history. I guess I was thinking of Norway
> which had some type of "accomodation" with the hitler socialists of WW
> II in order to avoid complete take over by Germany.
As in Norway was invaded and occupied? 'Accomodation' meaning a subsequent
puppet govt., not to mention Norwegians fighting for the Allies and in
resistance groups? Strike two.
> I was thinking that
> the Swedish situation was similar rather than the Swiss case of too
> expensive for a hitler socialism invasion. Do I have this correct? [I
> guess Norway is also the society supporting socialism with massive oil
> exports!] Certainly France split into for and against hitler socialism
> factions.
I would have thought that you might have become a little more cautious about
pronouncing on european history. And so you should be. Not only are you
wrong about Sweden and Norway, you manage to be in error about France as
well. Before France was invaded, there was a smallish french Nazi group, and
various rightwing ultramonarchist/nationalist groups, that supported Nazism.
Against them, at least after the foundation of the Popular Front, were the
socialists (social democrats) and communists, in a very uneasy alliance, and
these were in an even uneasier alliance with rightist republican/moderate
royalist groups. After the fall of France in 1940 - it was invaded, remember
- northern France was more or less under direct German authority and
southern France run by the Petain govt. (which notionally ran the whole
country). Against the Nazi and Petain rule, inside France, were Social
Democrats and Communists (socialists, in the proper sense of the word), but
they were hardly a united faction. Even the resistance groups were distinct
(SP/CP) and internecine fighting was not unknown. Outside France were the
Free French forces under de Gaulle. And, before you suggest it, there was
not a noticeable small/family business faction in the french resistance or
the Free French. Nobody blew up trains with the battlecry 'this is for small
scale unfettered free trade'.
Strike three. You're out.
> The main point of economic distinction that I was trying to
> draw between the European structures and the American stucture, that
> Ayn Rand wrote about in "Atlas Shrugged", is the idea of independent
> family business capitalism as opposed to the giant collectives of
> socialism whether called cartels or corporations or STATE CAPITALISM or
> whatever.
And these aren't of the USA how? The 'American structure' in the 20th
century experience of us poor european socialists is that of the cartel, the
corporation and now the multinationals.
> The dynamics of economic resilience and the "impossible"
> socialist bubble economic collapse that she predicted for Russian
> Keynesian socialism [and we have now observed in reality] is very
> different.
Sigh. The Soviet Union had bugger all to do with Keynes, at least after the
brief period of the NEP, if even then. Strike four? Batter, what are you
still doing here. Leave the plate now. (I hope that my baseball terms are
accurate. I really wouldn't know)
> Good seeing. JD
Unfortunately, I can't say the same.
Rosa
Stephen Hayes
jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote in a message to All:
jm> I was thinking of the reality facts of the German invasion in WW
jm> II. Neither the Swedish king or the socialist complexion of the
jm> partial democracy saved them { nor the Air Force} from the invasion
jm> and occupation.
Which alternative history channel are you tuned to?
jddescr...@my-deja.com
"Stephen Hayes" <Stephen.Hayesp...@fmlynet.org> wrote:
> FamilyNet HQ: Telnet:\\www.family-bbs.net
>
> jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote in a message to All:
>
> jm> II. Neither the Swedish king or the socialist complexion of the
> jm> partial democracy saved them { nor the Air Force} from the
invasion
> jm> and occupation.
>
> Which alternative history channel are you tuned to?
>
> Keep well
>
> Steve Hayes
> WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
> E-mail: haye...@yahoo.com
>
> FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
> http://www.fmlynet.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the history enquiry reference the ART works of Ayn
Rand. I guess you might call it the free people Ayn Rand Theory
[ART] channel.
She analyized human history and the dominant ruling coruption of
the king's men [ king's mentality = people who don't believe in
the American DECLARATION of all intrinsically equal in value
relative to the free people laws to protect rights ; rather they
believe in special king's laws and privileges and licenses and credits,
and rewards and glories and...]and the replacment socialists as follows;
I- The KMS [King's Men Spirits] are very, very smart and they have
maintained their totalitarian rule over most people throughout the
ages because of their intelligence and their restriction on the
average people being able to learn enough ART to protect their free
people rights. With the industrial revolution and some freedom ideas
from Britain the king's men were resisted and temporally turned back
in the founding of America and the American ideas of free independent
people owning their own lives [ SOUL = Self Ownership of yoUr Life]
and family business capitalism. America shook the king's men
[specifically king george] auf the backs of the American patriots.
II- When the european rulers recognized that the escape hatch of
American freedom was going to bleed their ruling population of all
the best and brightest and stop their ability to steal from these
real wealth producers they decided to change their ruling strategy from
the totalitarian king's to a mixed system with a small voice for the
serfs. They had to try to implement these changes quickly, in
historical terms, because the people were starving under the king's
men - look at Ireland, look at Sweden and the other kingdoms of Europe.
They hired the ideas of king's men like Kant to do a conversion from
total king's men rule to a collectivist , socialist/democratic
committee structure of rule over the serfs. For example they broke,
with KMS cruelty, the attempts by the French to break free. The KMS in
France are one of the easiest examples of their continued
socialist/king's men rule.
III - Toward the end of the 1800s the socialist rulers and king's men
realized that unless they broke America their days of glorious rule on
the people's backs was done for. American prosperity and average people
accomplishments and happiness growth and lifespans and such was a
magnet attracting all the producers thus by example it was
overwehelming the king's men/socialist rule. Consider Tesla, the model
for John Galt technology and the inventor of the electromagnetic motor
and electrical power transmission and ....Thus with elements such as
the British Fabians and the king's secret society at Cambridge where
Keynes and the socialist FIVE MEN spies hung out they set out to take
over America from within starting with the school system which had
never achieved free enterprise family business operation. The waves
of socialist take over have now accumulated in America for over a
century [ 1900 -1920, 1927 -1952, 1960 -1980, and 1985 - NOW ] in four
(4) waves and the Ayn Rand concern was a socialist bubble collapse of
the American economy similar to what we have now seen in spades with
the Russian socialist economy. She said if they completed their take
over the world would see a return to the 100 generations of the dark
ages of short/mean lives and the king's men/socialist rule.
Naturally some people, like you, don't like this analysis of human
history and the likely coming events but the American practical
question is COULD SHE BE RIGHT? Could "Atlas Shrugged" be as presient
as her prediction about the Russian socialist bubble collapse by a
FACTOR of 1000. Since she was the only one to predict the
TOTAL "impossible" economic collapse of Russian Keynesian socialism
certainly we need to consider the possibility? JD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vlorbik
i was all set to dismiss this
as a forgery because it didn't say
"factor of 1000" anywhere.
but then he snuck it in right at the end.
oh, the suspense!
not since ayn rand . . .
vlorbik
members.aol.com/vlorbik
BEGIN (LONG) QUOTE:
M J Carley
>
>I apologize for my poor history. I guess I was thinking of Norway
>which had some type of "accomodation" with the hitler socialists of WW
>II in order to avoid complete take over by Germany.
But Norway was completely taken over after it was invaded. There was
an attempt to accommodate Quisling (they threw Trotsky out) but not
to avoid ``complete take over.''
>I was thinking that the Swedish situation was similar rather than the
>Swiss case of too expensive for a hitler socialism invasion. Do I
>have this correct?
No.
>[I guess Norway is also the society supporting socialism with massive
>oil exports!] Certainly France split into for and against hitler
>socialism factions.
No, France (was) split into occupied and unoccupied regions.
>The main point of economic distinction that I was trying to draw
>between the European structures and the American stucture, that Ayn
>Rand wrote about in "Atlas Shrugged", is the idea of independent
>family business capitalism as opposed to the giant collectives of
>socialism whether called cartels or corporations or STATE CAPITALISM
>or whatever.
The US has not had `independent family business capitalism' for a long
time.
>The dynamics of economic resilience and the "impossible" socialist
>bubble economic collapse that she predicted for Russian Keynesian
>socialism [and we have now observed in reality] is very different.
`Keynesian socialism' in Russia? You are a troll and I claim my five
free copies of The Culture of Contentment.
> Good seeing. JD
Drop the term `hitler socialism'. It doesn't mean anything.
--
O makers of motorbikes and tractors! Builders of the Belfast and the
Titanic! Constructors of the Harlandic diesel electric locomotive
commissioned by the Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway Company!
Julian Buczek
>
> I apologize for my poor history. I guess I was thinking of Norway
> which had some type of "accomodation" with the hitler socialists
> of WW II in order to avoid complete take over by Germany.
You must be mistaking Norway with Finland. Finland had some sort of
unknown agreement with Russia not to be invaded and incorporated.
--
____ Julian Buczek|buc...@dns.au.com
'||_\\ _ _ ___ ___ ___ '|| _
|| \\ '|| || // \) ' // //_\) ||//
_||_// \\_// \\__, //_, \\__, _||\\
jddescr...@my-deja.com
ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote:
> In the referenced article, jddescr...@my-deja.com writes:
> >
> >I apologize for my poor history. I guess I was thinking of Norway
> >which had some type of "accomodation" with the hitler socialists of
> >WW
> >II in order to avoid complete take over by Germany.
>
> But Norway was completely taken over after it was invaded. There was
> an attempt to accommodate Quisling (they threw Trotsky out) but not
> to avoid ``complete take over.''
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have a clever way of partially answering the question.
I'm going to look up the history but I still think that the Swedish
king's men had some type of accomodation with the hitler socialists
[ are you another European that is going top tell me that the hitler
gang and the stalin gang and the mussolini gang and such were just
confused when they called themselves SOCIALISTS? and you know better?]
even if some call it "peace". Obviously it must have been different
from Norway. I think, for example, that Belgium had some
similar "arrangement" since the Belgium king's men were pivotal in the
funding of the hitler socialists in the early years of WW II. Those
people who, in reality, use Fing [Forcing,Frauding,Fearing] to socially
manipulate people from enslavment through serfdom through heavy
taxation I call socialists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >I was thinking that the Swedish situation was similar rather than the
> >Swiss case of too expensive for a hitler socialism invasion. Do I
> >have this correct?
>
> No.
>
> >[I guess Norway is also the society supporting socialism with massive
> >oil exports!] Certainly France split into for and against hitler
> >socialism factions.
>
> No, France (was) split into occupied and unoccupied regions.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about DeGaulle in Britain and the free France forces? They
weren't real happy about the hitler socialist invsion!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >The main point of economic distinction that I was trying to draw
> >between the European structures and the American stucture, that Ayn
> >Rand wrote about in "Atlas Shrugged", is the idea of independent
> >family business capitalism as opposed to the giant collectives of
> >socialism whether called cartels or corporations or STATE CAPITALISM
> >or whatever.
>
> The US has not had `independent family business capitalism' for a long
> time.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My concern as well as the Ayn Rand concern is the socialist waves of
take over in the last century; 1900 - 1920, 1927 - 1952, 1960 - 1980,
and 1985 - NOW. You may notice that the excuse of helping the king's
men of Europe in their socialist wars was a large part of these
socialist waves of take over in America. With each wave more and more
American family business capitalism has been crushed out of existence
as you say but if you think we are totally gone you are mistaken. We
are below the radar horizon trying to survive and eventually return
and prosper. In the short period when President Reagn turned the US
back from the edge of the socialist cliff there were more new family
business capitalism starts than any other time in American history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >The dynamics of economic resilience and the "impossible" socialist
> >bubble economic collapse that she predicted for Russian Keynesian
> >socialism [and we have now observed in reality] is very different.
>
> `Keynesian socialism' in Russia? You are a troll and I claim my five
> free copies of The Culture of Contentment.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Before you worry about uncalled for insults why don't you try
to respond to the meaning? Change it to stalin/lenin/marx socialism
if you are a big Keynesian socialism fan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Good seeing. JD
>
> Drop the term `hitler socialism'. It doesn't mean anything.
>
> --
> O makers of motorbikes and tractors! Builders of the Belfast and the
> Titanic! Constructors of the Harlandic diesel electric locomotive
> commissioned by the Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway Company!
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to excuse your name calling and just assume you are
ignorant of the connections between Keynes at the king's secret
Apostle's Club of Cambridge and the various Russian socialist
spies known as the Cambridge five with the most recent disclosure
being LORD ROTHSCHILD or the fifth man. The socialist international
has a long history and they are lucky that people like yourself will
never see the truth, no matter how clear the Ayn Rand warnings, until
it is another desperate situation. The British Secret State is being
disclosed and opened up in case you have any interest in your own
countries role in world socialism. See the results of the Spycatcher
Affair. Are you afraid of the KING'S SECRET ACT? JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
M J Carley
>In article <G3yG35.Hr...@bath.ac.uk>,
> ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote:
>> In the referenced article, jddescr...@my-deja.com writes:
>
>> >
>> >I apologize for my poor history. I guess I was thinking of Norway
>> >which had some type of "accomodation" with the hitler socialists of
>> >WW
>> >II in order to avoid complete take over by Germany.
>
>>
>> But Norway was completely taken over after it was invaded. There was
>> an attempt to accommodate Quisling (they threw Trotsky out) but not
>> to avoid ``complete take over.''
>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>You have a clever way of partially answering the question.
I wasn't answering a question: I was pointing that you were wrong.
>I'm going to look up the history but I still think that the Swedish
>king's men had some type of accomodation with the hitler socialists
You're going to look up the history?
>[ are you another European that is going top tell me that the hitler
>gang and the stalin gang and the mussolini gang and such were just
>confused when they called themselves SOCIALISTS? and you know better?]
Yes, I do know better. As do the millions of people who called
themselves socialists and fought against Hitler and Mussolini and
Franco.
>even if some call it "peace". Obviously it must have been different
>from Norway. I think, for example, that Belgium had some
>similar "arrangement" since the Belgium king's men were pivotal in the
>funding of the hitler socialists in the early years of WW II. Those
>people who, in reality, use Fing [Forcing,Frauding,Fearing] to socially
>manipulate people from enslavment through serfdom through heavy
>taxation I call socialists.
You've read about as much politics as you have history.
>> >[I guess Norway is also the society supporting socialism with massive
>> >oil exports!] Certainly France split into for and against hitler
>> >socialism factions.
>>
>> No, France (was) split into occupied and unoccupied regions.
>>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>What about DeGaulle in Britain and the free France forces? They
>weren't real happy about the hitler socialist invsion!
The French in France weren't too happy either.
>> The US has not had `independent family business capitalism' for a long
>> time.
>>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>My concern as well as the Ayn Rand concern is the socialist waves of
>take over in the last century; 1900 - 1920, 1927 - 1952, 1960 - 1980,
>and 1985 - NOW. You may notice that the excuse of helping the king's
>men of Europe in their socialist wars was a large part of these
>socialist waves of take over in America. With each wave more and more
>American family business capitalism has been crushed out of existence
>as you say but if you think we are totally gone you are mistaken. We
>are below the radar horizon trying to survive and eventually return
>and prosper. In the short period when President Reagn turned the US
>back from the edge of the socialist cliff there were more new family
>business capitalism starts than any other time in American history.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> >The dynamics of economic resilience and the "impossible" socialist
>> >bubble economic collapse that she predicted for Russian Keynesian
>> >socialism [and we have now observed in reality] is very different.
>>
>> `Keynesian socialism' in Russia? You are a troll and I claim my five
>> free copies of The Culture of Contentment.
>>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Before you worry about uncalled for insults why don't you try
>to respond to the meaning? Change it to stalin/lenin/marx socialism
>if you are a big Keynesian socialism fan.
Why don't you try writing something that has a meaning? As far as I
can tell, you claimed that Russia was run on Keynesian lines. You are,
I think, the only person who has ever claimed this.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I'm going to excuse your name calling and just assume you are
>ignorant of the connections between Keynes at the king's secret
>Apostle's Club of Cambridge and the various Russian socialist
>spies known as the Cambridge five with the most recent disclosure
>being LORD ROTHSCHILD or the fifth man. The socialist international
>has a long history and they are lucky that people like yourself will
>never see the truth, no matter how clear the Ayn Rand warnings, until
>it is another desperate situation. The British Secret State is being
>disclosed and opened up in case you have any interest in your own
>countries role in world socialism. See the results of the Spycatcher
>Affair. Are you afraid of the KING'S SECRET ACT? JD
When did the Randinistas join up with David Icke?
Francis Muir
M J Carley:
> `Keynesian socialism' in Russia? You are
> a troll and I claim my five free copies of
> The Culture of Contentment.
Is the construct: "You are . . . and I claim . . ." really still alive
and well? The Daily Mail talked me into assaulting a man in Bournmouth
(sorry, Bormuff) one glorious summer day there in 1938 with a variation
of this devise -- and he told me to fuck off. I'm not sure that your
True Merkin would have any idea what it was all about.
M J Carley
It is indeed alive and well. It pops a lot on uk.rec.motorcycles and
in Private Eye.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
----------------excerpted, see original-------------------------------
Hi Rosa,
If you are the name sake of the original rosa planted in the early
german socialist parties you are either very old or a Buddist spirit.
It would explain your problems with baseball terminology and the idea
that the enslavment of people by the world socialist international is
just a recreational game to you. The first Russian Keynesian NEP was
just a recognition of the early collapse of the forced socialization.
It was a good thing in the sense that Ayn Rand was able to use the
brief thaw to escape from the frozen enslavment of Russia. She is an
enormous example of what one little lady who believed in freedom can do
to stop the slavers of the socialist system = the SSmen. People like
ou have covered up the link of Keynes and the socialists at the
Apostle's king's secret club of Cambridge when you weren't able to
continuiue the cover on marx but the Spycatcher Affair has blown the
lid off your deceptions for the world to see and understand as Ayn
Rand exposed so well did in her presient works of ART [Ayn Rand
Theory]. JD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jimC
> I apologize for my poor history. I guess I was thinking of Norway
> which had some type of "accomodation" with the hitler socialists of WW
> II in order to avoid complete take over by Germany.
Is this a joke? Norway *was* taken over by Germany. Former
defense chief Vidkun Quisling invited Germany to invade Norway
and was then named prime minister of the occupation government.
He was tried for treason after the war and executed. "'Quisling',"
you muse. "Isn't that also a traitor?" Yes, but not before he
was born.
> I was thinking that
> the Swedish situation was similar rather than the Swiss case of too
> expensive for a hitler socialism invasion.
After summer, 1940, Sweden was completely surrounded by Axis or
Axis-occupied
nations and remained neutral. Sweden was pressured into providing
armaments to the Germans including critical ball bearings.
> Do I have this correct? [I
> guess Norway is also the society supporting socialism with massive oil
> exports!]
Yes, oil makes you socialist. Look at Texas. Look at the Saudis.
Actually, Norway by some measures currently enjoys the second highest
standard of living in the world. Norway has been able to prosper
by exporting her dumbest citizens to North Dakota. Some of them
went to Brooklyn, and a few went to San Francisco.
> Certainly France split into for and against hitler socialism
> factions.
Some theories of history hold that she was invaded in May, 1940, and
surrendered the following month. These theories further hold that
a pro-Axis government was allowed to exist in the south, headquartered
at Vichy and headed by WWI hero Philippe Petain and Pierre Laval, while
the north was occupied by German troops. Mind you, this is
theoretical.
> The main point of economic distinction that I was trying to
> draw between the European structures and the American stucture, that
> Ayn Rand wrote about in "Atlas Shrugged", is the idea of independent
> family business capitalism as opposed to the giant collectives of
> socialism whether called cartels or corporations or STATE CAPITALISM or
> whatever.
So Rand thinks the family business is best. How does he feel about
the little house on the prairie? How about the Nelson Bunker Hunt
house on the prairie? How about Rockefeller's house?
> The dynamics of economic resilience and the "impossible"
> socialist bubble economic collapse that she predicted for Russian
> Keynesian socialism [and we have now observed in reality] is very
> different.
Keynes seems to be many things to many people. They don't call him a
polymath for nothing, do they? They say Greenspan's a Keynesian.
What does Greenspan think of this Rand fellow?
> > >
> > > I don't know the details of the Swedish economy but I would expect
> > > that a close look would show a false society based on natural
> > > resource exploitation very similar to the Russian Keynesian society.
> > > Remember the factor of 1000 KIS [KIng's Surprise] in Russia revealed
> > > - see below. Does Sweden sell raw materials such as mineralss and
> > > oil?
I haven't followed your posts, and know nothing about the KIng's
Surprise.
Why do I have the feeling that a reservoir of strange nomenclature is
dammed up in that mind of yours?
jimC
jimC
[On Ronnie]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Just the opposite is true if you look at all the new family business
> capitalism starts when it appreared that the Reagan revolution was
> going to get the socman [social manipulator] auf the backs of the
> American people. Those real hopes for averqage people only lasted
> until the socialist forces were reelected in 1985.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reagan was elected in 1980 and took office in January, 1981.
I haven't a clue what happened in 1985 except on the weekend
the baseball season began, I remember a mellow walk across
Washington Square after one of those spectacularly
beautiful days in New York at the outset of spring. It was
late afternoon and lights were beginning to come on. I was
thinking I better hightail it over to Newark to catch my plane
back to L.A. When I arrived 90 minutes later (and had
checked my rental car back in), I reached the airline
check-in counter out of breath and presented my ticket,
whereupon I was asked if I wanted to purchase a new ticket
since *that* ticket was for the previous afternoon. But I had
shown up at the correct hour of the day. That's all I remember
from 1985. Eight-four was the Olympics in L.A. and Orwell
unrealized, and '86 was snow up to the doorknob in Connecticut.
Why is this relevant? Well, I had to have a way to work
Ayn Rand in. NY-LA axis, later than you think, competition,
Orwell, snow job. Get it?
jimC
jimC
[On Peter Wright's _Spycatcher_]
> I'm going to excuse your name calling and just assume you are
> ignorant of the connections between Keynes at the king's secret
> Apostle's Club of Cambridge and the various Russian socialist
> spies known as the Cambridge five with the most recent disclosure
> being LORD ROTHSCHILD or the fifth man. The socialist international
> has a long history and they are lucky that people like yourself will
> never see the truth, no matter how clear the Ayn Rand warnings, until
> it is another desperate situation. The British Secret State is being
> disclosed and opened up in case you have any interest in your own
> countries role in world socialism. See the results of the Spycatcher
> Affair. Are you afraid of the KING'S SECRET ACT?
Well, let's assume that the USSR is deader than a doornail, and
that the only major state remaining that proclaims itself even nominally
Marxist is China. Cuba is the major minor, er, only significant
small communist state, and it is full of crumbling concrete and
Canadian tourists hatching ways of passing through Miami on their
way home without giving up their Cuban cigars. If you'll do
some checking, you'll see that Canadians are behind almost
everything.
So bring us up to date, and if you will, address Ayn Rand's
predictions of the technology boom centered south of San Francisco.
By the way, in some of your posts, you use "auf" als Praeposition.
You shouldn't do this, or someone might ask you who Joe DiMaggio is
in order to verify your identity. (I doubt anyone will actually
ask, but just in case, he played tight end for the Green Bay Packers,
and he had a girlfriend in Kalamazoo, Wisconsin.)
jimC
jimC
>
> In article <3A14AFBB...@pacbell.net>,
> jimC <jimc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > [On Ronnie]
> >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> > >
> > > Just the opposite is true if you look at all the new family business
> > > capitalism starts when it appreared that the Reagan revolution was
> > > going to get the socman [social manipulator] auf the backs of the
> > > American people. Those real hopes for averqage people only lasted
> > > until the socialist forces were reelected in 1985.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >
> >
> > I haven't a clue what happened in 1985 except on the weekend
> > the baseball season began, I remember a mellow walk across
> > Washington Square after one of those spectacularly
> > beautiful days in New York at the outset of spring. It was
> > late afternoon and lights were beginning to come on. I was
> > thinking I better hightail it over to Newark to catch my plane
> > back to L.A. When I arrived 90 minutes later (and had
> > checked my rental car back in), I reached the airline
> > check-in counter out of breath and presented my ticket,
> > whereupon I was asked if I wanted to purchase a new ticket
> > since *that* ticket was for the previous afternoon. But I had
> > shown up at the correct hour of the day. That's all I remember
> > from 1985. Eight-four was the Olympics in L.A. and Orwell
> > unrealized, and '86 was snow up to the doorknob in Connecticut.
> >
> > Why is this relevant? Well, I had to have a way to work
> > Ayn Rand in. NY-LA axis, later than you think, competition,
> > Orwell, snow job. Get it?
> >
> > jimC
> >
>
> You missed me with the NYC - LA axis but certainly the snow
> job is thorough.
Rand lived in L.A. and New York. The Objectivist following was
largest in these two cities and of course around college campuses,
excluding seminaries and the military academies. I know Rand
wasn't big in seminaries because in Texas once (if I may
generalize) I observed a guy from Waxahatchie Bible College or
some equally unappealing seat of learning trying to convert
a guy to Jesus who was trying to convert him to Rand.
> In 1984 the congressional support that
> President Reagan had in the senate was turned back so that
> his efforts to pull America back from the socialist cliff
> that the third (3rd) socialist wave threatened US with from
> johnson,nixon,carter [1960 - 1980] was thwarted.
What method did Reagan use "to pull America back from the
socialist cliff"? He propopsed large increases in defense
spending and decreases in taxes to produce unprecented
deficits.
> [We are
> currently in the fourth (4th) socialist wave 1985 - NOW.]
> You probably don't remember how close we were to going over
> with greater than 20% interest rates and mothers rioting in
> meat markets
I remember 21% mortage rates in 1981, but not in 1985. I was
in business during all that period and needed to know. As far
as I know, they weren't rioting at the meat markets either,
although there were some brouhahas at gas stations.
> [sounds kind of like Canada doesn't it? - You
> are right that Canada is high on the possible socialist
> collapse list along with Venzuela,...] and such.
Yes, Canada is quite a bit like Caracas except for the weather.
By some measures, the devious Canucks have the world's highest
standard of living, ahead of the commie Norwegians and the
fearless Americans, who in turn are just ahead of the
various socialist people's republics (or monarchies) of
western Europe. Take the French. *You* take the French.
Ever tried to find a screwdriver in Paris to adjust a
broken steam radiator control? Place is shot through
with ditzy intellectuals and pop socialists. I should know.
I lived there once on the outskirts and had to go to
Frankfurt with its black-leathered motorcycle gangs just
to find a decent screwdriver.
Those are my thoughts on that.
> Ayn Rand was
> primarily concerned with the stability of freedom in her
> chosen country, America and we can only pray that the
> socialist waves will be turned back to freedom before her
> vision of "Atlas Shrugged" is realized and the free people
> producers of real wealth stop paying auf {authoritarian force}
"auf"... so it's not German. In German it would be "Aum"
for Autoritaeremacht, or something like that. I doubt
you'll have occasion to use it in Paris. Remember, they
don't even have decent screwdrivers.
> the socman [social manipulator] socialist bureacrats living by
> theft in their lavish king's men privilege
Civil service is the way to 6-figure salaries, eh? So how
much are they paying bus drivers on municipally-owned bus lines,
would you guess? Remember Ralph and Alice up there in that
cold-water flat?
> with their luxury
> loot of buildings and vehicles and........
I don't want to put form before substance, but really, that's too
many dots for a legal ellipsis.
jimC
jddescr...@my-deja.com
> jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [On Ronnie]
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> >
> > Just the opposite is true if you look at all the new family business
> > capitalism starts when it appreared that the Reagan revolution was
> > going to get the socman [social manipulator] auf the backs of the
> > American people. Those real hopes for averqage people only lasted
> > until the socialist forces were reelected in 1985.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> Reagan was elected in 1980 and took office in January, 1981.
>
> I haven't a clue what happened in 1985 except on the weekend
> the baseball season began, I remember a mellow walk across
> Washington Square after one of those spectacularly
> beautiful days in New York at the outset of spring. It was
> late afternoon and lights were beginning to come on. I was
> thinking I better hightail it over to Newark to catch my plane
> back to L.A. When I arrived 90 minutes later (and had
> checked my rental car back in), I reached the airline
> check-in counter out of breath and presented my ticket,
> whereupon I was asked if I wanted to purchase a new ticket
> since *that* ticket was for the previous afternoon. But I had
> shown up at the correct hour of the day. That's all I remember
> from 1985. Eight-four was the Olympics in L.A. and Orwell
> unrealized, and '86 was snow up to the doorknob in Connecticut.
>
> Why is this relevant? Well, I had to have a way to work
> Ayn Rand in. NY-LA axis, later than you think, competition,
> Orwell, snow job. Get it?
>
> jimC
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You missed me with the NYC - LA axis but certainly the snow
job is thorough. In 1984 the congressional support that
President Reagan had in the senate was turned back so that
his efforts to pull America back from the socialist cliff
that the third (3rd) socialist wave threatened US with from
johnson,nixon,carter [1960 - 1980] was thwarted. [We are
currently in the fourth (4th) socialist wave 1985 - NOW.]
You probably don't remember how close we were to going over
with greater than 20% interest rates and mothers rioting in
meat markets [sounds kind of like Canada doesn't it? - You
are right that Canada is high on the possible socialist
collapse list along with Venzuela,...] and such. Ayn Rand was
primarily concerned with the stability of freedom in her
chosen country, America and we can only pray that the
socialist waves will be turned back to freedom before her
vision of "Atlas Shrugged" is realized and the free people
producers of real wealth stop paying auf {authoritarian force}
the socman [social manipulator] socialist bureacrats living by
theft in their lavish king's men privilege with their luxury
loot of buildings and vehicles and........
Good seeing. JD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Scobie
Take the French. *You* take the French.
> Ever tried to find a screwdriver in Paris to adjust a
> broken steam radiator control? Place is shot through
> with ditzy intellectuals and pop socialists. I should know.
> I lived there once on the outskirts and had to go to
> Frankfurt with its black-leathered motorcycle gangs just
> to find a decent screwdriver.
>
> Those are my thoughts on that.
Leave a space to think about BHV. Skahrieuuu drihvairrs, encore galore.
Maureen
jddescr...@my-deja.com
jimC <jimc...@pacbell.net> wrote: the comments with one (>) mark.
> > jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote: wrote the comments with two (>>)
marks
>
-------------excerpted, see original---------------------------------
>
>
> > In 1984 the congressional support that
> > President Reagan had in the senate was turned back so that
> > his efforts to pull America back from the socialist cliff
> > that the third (3rd) socialist wave threatened US with from
> > johnson,nixon,carter [1960 - 1980] was thwarted.
>
> What method did Reagan use "to pull America back from the
> socialist cliff"? He propopsed large increases in defense
> spending and decreases in taxes to produce unprecented
> deficits.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh how easily we forget! President Reagan, starting with his
brave defense of the Goldwater campaign against johnson and vietnam
which the voters loved by greater than 60 % in 1964 ran on a program to
get the socman [social manipulator = read socialist bureacrat] auf the
backs of the American people. The crises with carter were big enough
that even some Reagan Democrats listened in 1980 and thus he was able
to put through the first of what should have been a continuing set of
tax taking reductions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [We are
> > currently in the fourth (4th) socialist wave 1985 - NOW.]
> > You probably don't remember how close we were to going over
> > with greater than 20% interest rates and mothers rioting in
> > meat markets
>
> I remember 21% mortage rates in 1981, but not in 1985. I was
> in business during all that period and needed to know. As far
> as I know, they weren't rioting at the meat markets either,
> although there were some brouhahas at gas stations.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fourth wave started with the assent of Bush and Clinton in 1985
following the defeat of the Reagan support on congress in the 1984
election. Carter was still there when the meat market riots were under
way. His response was to remanipulate the trade with Argentina to let
beef into America.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [sounds kind of like Canada doesn't it? - You
> > are right that Canada is high on the possible socialist
> > collapse list along with Venzuela,...] and such.
>
> Yes, Canada is quite a bit like Caracas except for the weather.
> By some measures, the devious Canucks have the world's highest
> standard of living,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly they have the cheapest rum and cigars that go along with
the package deal with their friend the socialist boss of cuba. Cuba
has replaced an auto shortage with ox pulled carts [socialist ingenuity]
so maybe the Canadians just want to get practice for post socialist
bubble collapse experiences?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ahead of the commie Norwegians and the
> fearless Americans, who in turn are just ahead of the
> various socialist people's republics (or monarchies) of
> western Europe. Take the French. *You* take the French.
> Ever tried to find a screwdriver in Paris to adjust a
> broken steam radiator control? Place is shot through
> with ditzy intellectuals and pop socialists. I should know.
> I lived there once on the outskirts and had to go to
> Frankfurt with its black-leathered motorcycle gangs just
> to find a decent screwdriver.
>
> Those are my thoughts on that.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
While speaking so disparingingly about the French how about
answering a question that Rosa Luxemburg avoided because it
wasn't in the socialist international handbook she was using?
Is the reputation for excellent family businesss resaurants
deserved and if so how does it happen when everything else is
a giant socialist collective/cartel like airbus? Are there
special tax laws for these businesses because the socialist
bosses love good food like the Russian socman loves limosines?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ayn Rand was
> > primarily concerned with the stability of freedom in her
> > chosen country, America and we can only pray that the
> > socialist waves will be turned back to freedom before her
> > vision of "Atlas Shrugged" is realized and the free people
> > producers of real wealth stop paying auf {authoritarian force}
>
> "auf"... so it's not German. In German it would be "Aum"
> for Autoritaeremacht, or something like that. I doubt
> you'll have occasion to use it in Paris. Remember, they
> don't even have decent screwdrivers.
>
> > the socman [social manipulator] socialist bureacrats living by
> > theft in their lavish king's men privilege
>
> Civil service is the way to 6-figure salaries, eh? So how
> much are they paying bus drivers on municipally-owned bus lines,
> would you guess? Remember Ralph and Alice up there in that
> cold-water flat?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like when you view the Moscow street scene you see the woman
street sweeper but miss the KGB socialist boss in the Zill [or even
Mercedies] limousine. I first heard about the reality of the splendor
of the socialist bureacrast bosses in the book "MIG PILOT" written by
the escapee in about 1968. Have you read the book "Russia House"? If
you spend some time in Washigton DC you will see the same picture if
you can track the limousines as they swish around the palaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > with their luxury
> > loot of buildings and vehicles and........
>
> I don't want to put form before substance, but really, that's too
> many dots for a legal ellipsis.
>
> jimC
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the literary tips. I'm still mainly stuggling with those
hard complicated meanings of things but certainly the form has value.
Good seeing. JD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ted samsel
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It sounds like when you view the Moscow street scene you see the woman
> street sweeper but miss the KGB socialist boss in the Zill [or even
> Mercedies] limousine. I first heard about the reality of the splendor
> of the socialist bureacrast bosses in the book "MIG PILOT" written by
> the escapee in about 1968. Have you read the book "Russia House"? If
> you spend some time in Washigton DC you will see the same picture if
> you can track the limousines as they swish around the palaces.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget the Pycckii Mafyia's hand in the spread of minor league
hockey throughout the SunBelt, buster.
You're the guy selling Mike Morris the dime bags, right?
--
TBSa...@infi.net
http://home.infi.net/~tbsamsel/
'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
Hank Snow (1914-1999)
THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
jimC
>
> jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > It sounds like when you view the Moscow street scene you see the woman
> > street sweeper but miss the KGB socialist boss in the Zill [or even
> > Mercedies] limousine. I first heard about the reality of the splendor
> > of the socialist bureacrast bosses in the book "MIG PILOT" written by
> > the escapee in about 1968. Have you read the book "Russia House"? If
> > you spend some time in Washigton DC you will see the same picture if
> > you can track the limousines as they swish around the palaces.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> hockey throughout the SunBelt, buster.
The Pycckiis? Hay-ull, even the Russkis are in on it. Com'nism
is purty durn near everywhere and the KGB guys are driving around
in Mercedies [sic] and are indistinguishable with Century City lawyers.
(Come to think of it, a lot of recent Century City lawyer newhires came
here from PocciR-backwards.) Many's the palatially-swishing ZIL
that I've spotted on the streets of Washington, too, although
every time I happen to be stationary in that city, a youth
invariably approaches and inquires if I would like to be
involved in the purchase of a pharmaceutical or date a woman
he happens to know. Talk about a parliament of whores!
By the way, I actually read _Mig Pilot_. It's about a Soviet air
force flyer in the Russian Far East who defected in a Mig.
jimC
Pascal Zerling
<jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> While speaking so disparingingly about the French how about
> answering a question that Rosa Luxemburg avoided because it
> wasn't in the socialist international handbook she was using?
> Is the reputation for excellent family businesss resaurants
> deserved and if so how does it happen when everything else is
> a giant socialist collective/cartel like airbus? Are there
> special tax laws for these businesses because the socialist
> bosses love good food like the Russian socman loves limosines?
Good question. France certainly has more than its fair share of
fine small restaurants. Why? Well, the tax laws certainly don't
encourage small family restaurants. In fact, it's pretty difficult to
get a full (grade 4) alcohol license in France. I would say there
are three main reasons why there are so many good small
restaurants in France:
1. French people go out to eat more often than any other nation.
And they don't want to eat fast food, but fine cooking in a family
restaurant. So there is a lot of demand.
2. Traditionally, starting a bistrot (a café with a terrace that can
serve alcohol) or small restaurant has been the way for a couple
from the working class to become independent, and not work
for someone else.
3. The consumption of alcohol in France is the highest in Europe.
Officially, it's higher in Luxembourg, but this is just because many
people who travel through Luxembourg buy alcohol there due to
low value added tax.
In addition, there is a European Union programme to encourage
young people in France to establish bistrots or small restaurants.
The EU and the local municipality will co-finance low-interest
loans over a period of several years. The French government
feels that every small country village needs to have at least one
bistrot where the local people can meet. Otherwise, there is no
sense of community. Keep in mind that the French bistrot is
not just a pub, but often also functions as a shop and post
office.
Jeffrey Davis
> Oh how easily we forget! President Reagan, starting with his
> brave defense of the Goldwater campaign against johnson and vietnam
> which the voters loved by greater than 60 % in 1964 ran on a program to
> get the socman [social manipulator = read socialist bureacrat] auf the
> backs of the American people. The crises with carter were big enough
> that even some Reagan Democrats listened in 1980 and thus he was able
> to put through the first of what should have been a continuing set of
> tax taking reductions.
Federal Revenue as a % of GDP is as stable as the deep salt mines of
Arizona. The tax shell game is a favorite one in Washington. Cut this
one, raise that one.
HTH. HAND.
--
Jeffrey Davis <jeffk...@earthlink.net>
The John Dortmunder of Lexington, Ky
jddescr...@my-deja.com
"Pascal Zerling" <pascal....@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
> <jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > While speaking so disparingingly about the French how about
> > answering a question that Rosa Luxemburg avoided because it
> > wasn't in the socialist international handbook she was using?
> > Is the reputation for excellent family businesss resaurants
> > deserved and if so how does it happen when everything else is
> > a giant socialist collective/cartel like airbus? Are there
> > special tax laws for these businesses because the socialist
> > bosses love good food like the Russian socman loves limosines?
>
Very interesting! It says that a whole different happiness
accounting method [compared to the American one since the
socialist waves of take over of America in the last century]
is needed in evaluating the French standard of living. Typical
American families are theoretically making around 100 K per
year incomes but by the time we consider that they have to
have three exploiting autos out on jammed race tracks all
the time and catch fast food at the friendly arches instead
of family dining and on and on the real wealth that is being
consumed is relatively small. Almost everything is being
taken by the socman bureacrat living in socialist boss land
of luxury on the backs of these people or victims of socialism.
On average more than 60% of every dollar of income goes to
these socialstt busreacrats because they know how to spend
it better! This is AFTER President Reagan exposed the Russian
Keynesian socialist enemy as a socialist bubble of socialist money.
The ability to consume signature family business high quality
product without time pressures and socialist takings is a
very big achievment for the French and I think your argument
is that they insist on it as a normal part of their life style.
Good for them! I hope they are smart [enough] to continue to
resist this aspect {corporate collectives of prepared food}
of socialism.
Good seeing. JD
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Julian Buczek <buc...@iname.com> wrote:
> > In the referenced article, jddescr...@my-deja.com writes:
> >
> > I apologize for my poor history. I guess I was thinking of Norway
> > which had some type of "accomodation" with the hitler socialists
> > of WW II in order to avoid complete take over by Germany.
>
> You must be mistaking Norway with Finland. Finland had some sort of
> unknown agreement with Russia not to be invaded and incorporated.
>
> --
> ____ Julian Buczek|buc...@dns.au.com
> '||_\\ _ _ ___ ___ ___ '|| _
> || \\ '|| || // \) ' // //_\) ||//
> _||_// \\_// \\__, //_, \\__, _||\\
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It could be since my European history is so bad. Finland actually
put up some sort of temporary/stiff resistance to Russian socialism
early in the century didn't they? Does/did Finland have a king? It
seems that these "accomodations" [read surrender] like I was thinking
for Sweden are often set up in king's secret by the king's men and
thus provide a cover for the socialist representatives in a parliment
that is supposed to be on the side of the average people.
Good seeing. JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lloyd-Jones
> It could be since my European history is so bad.
JD,
There is another possibility: that your history is bad because you keep
bending even the most incontrovertible facts into the bizarre mental
structures that you show off through your very peculiar vocabulary.
-dlj.
Jddescript
>After summer, 1940, Sweden was completely surrounded by Axis or
>Axis-occupied
>nations and remained neutral. Sweden was pressured into providing
>armaments to the Germans including critical ball bearings.
>
How was the pressure applied and was the commentator who called it peace
correct? Maybe it was just socialist surrender by the king? and thus not worth
a token invasion by the hitler socialists.
>
>Yes, oil makes you socialist. Look at Texas. Look at the Saudis.
>Actually, Norway by some measures currently enjoys the second highest
>standard of living in the world. Norway has been able to prosper
>by exporting her dumbest citizens to North Dakota. Some of them
>went to Brooklyn, and a few went to San Francisco.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes! look at socialist Russia. The exploitation of raw materials is a looting
game that socialists can play with a captive/enslaved socialist population. The
fact that the socialist bureacrats of Norway have so much money from selling
oil that they can "give" some of the left over, after their lavish luxuries, to
the little people may impress you but a similar situation led to a large
surprise for the Russian socialists A society based on resource stripping
rather than free people family business production is an inherently unstable
society. Can the change in Norway be seen from before they exploited all the
offshore oil? I know a number of the refugee Norwegians in North Dakota and the
one complaint I've never heard is a desire to return to the king of Norway and
live in the kind of king's men poverty that existed there last century while
the king men lived on the backs of the average people. Dumb? maybe by socialist
values.
.
----------------------------------------------------------
.>
>> The main point of economic distinction that I was trying to
>> draw between the European structures and the American stucture, that
>> Ayn Rand wrote about in "Atlas Shrugged", is the idea of independent
>> family business capitalism as opposed to the giant collectives of
>> socialism whether called cartels or corporations or STATE CAPITALISM or
>> whatever.
>
>
>So Rand thinks the family business is best. How does he feel about
>the little house on the prairie? How about the Nelson Bunker Hunt
>house on the prairie? How about Rockefeller's house?
>
>
>> The dynamics of economic resilience and the "impossible"
>> socialist bubble economic collapse that she predicted for Russian
>> Keynesian socialism [and we have now observed in reality] is very
>> different.
>
>
>Keynes seems to be many things to many people. They don't call him a
>polymath for nothing, do they? They say Greenspan's a Keynesian.
>What does Greenspan think of this Rand fellow?
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greenspan started out as a free people economist and thus a supporter of the
Ayn Rand and Adam Smith exconomic theories. He broke away for the pull of the
socialist bureacratic big time loot when he had a chance to join the
nixon/liddy crew in Washington. You remember nixon and price wage controls and
kissing up to the china socialist monster dictators?
Greenspan actually wrote some chapters in the economic text of Ayn Rand
'Capitalism; The Unknown Ideal" before the loot got the better of free people
principles. Ayn Rand is not only unique as the only world famous [to a tew who
have read her ART works] lady philosopher/economist but she never sold out and
worked or bowed down to the corporate socialist collectives of any kind. She
wasd the family business capitalist producer she wrote about and has since been
crushed out of apparent existence in America.
-----------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > I don't know the details of the Swedish economy but I would expect
>> > > that a close look would show a false society based on natural
>> > > resource exploitation very similar to the Russian Keynesian society.
>> > > Remember the factor of 1000 KIS [KIng's Surprise] in Russia revealed
>> > > - see below. Does Sweden sell raw materials such as mineralss and
>> > > oil?
>
>I haven't followed your posts, and know nothing about the KIng's
>Surprise.
------------------------------------------------------------
The king's men [king's mentality] or socialists tell us that they have every
thing under socialist control like the Keynesian socialism of Russia and their
five (5) year "growth" plans. They were supposed to be the richest country in
the world. Now after the dust has settled [tear down this socman wall mister
gorby!] they have collapsed by a FACTOR of 1000 in real numbers - ask any
socialist bureacrast that wasn't a high enough socialiast boss to get the
American tax payer loot out of the country about their holdings in their
socialist savings account. Ayn Rand was the ONLY economist in the world to
predict thwe TOTAL Russian Keynesian socialist bubble collapse. Her predictions
about the socialist take over of America are now listened to with greater
interest!
Good seeing. JD
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jddescript
>Date: 11/20/00 8:00 AM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A193C...@earthlink.net>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
You appear to have bought the socialist big lie story that along with "the
check is in the mail!" and a monica presidency promise [see the Genifer
Flowers book] the only other certainty is the tax taking burden is fixed and
can't be dramatically reduced. I don't know how stable such looting has been in
Europe going back to before the king's men morphed into socialist bureacrats
but nothing could be less true about America.
After we rejected the king's men there were no income taxes until the
"emergency" to help the European king's men with world war I. Of course the
"emergency" never went away because the socialist bureacrasts got so used to
their life of luxury living auf the backs of average Americans. Now there are
even cities within states with both having income tax takings to satisfy their
king's greed. This is besides the other takings some of which are very hard to
see and build up to the type of KIS [KIng's Surprise] that we saw with the
total socialist bubble collapse of Russian Keynesian economics. There is
nothing inevitable about the takings but that people like yourself don't care,
and protest and try to stop the socialist take over. The Ayn Rand Theory [ART]
taught UShow to do it. JD
-------------------------------------------------------
jimC
> >After summer, 1940, Sweden was completely surrounded by Axis or
> >Axis-occupied
> >nations and remained neutral. Sweden was pressured into providing
> >armaments to the Germans including critical ball bearings.
> >
>
> How was the pressure applied and was the commentator who called it peace
> correct? Maybe it was just socialist surrender by the king? and thus not worth
> a token invasion by the hitler socialists.
Come peacfully, old fellow, or I'll be forced to call in Mr. Krumpke
again.
We don't want to go through another episode with the gopher paws and
the little rubber bags, do we now?
jimC
ted samsel
These guys are in the throes of serious lutefisk abuse. What do you
expect?
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Yes! I make extraordinary efforts to arrive at the truth.
I would think that with all your names you would be very
well connected to the king's men [king's mentality] of
Europe and could help in solving these questions of
historical fact.
Good seeing. JD
David Friedman
wrote:
> In article <3A0FACDF...@iname.com>,
> Julian Buczek <buc...@iname.com> wrote:
>
> > > In the referenced article, jddescr...@my-deja.com writes:
> > >
> > > I apologize for my poor history. I guess I was thinking of Norway
> > > which had some type of "accomodation" with the hitler socialists
> > > of WW II in order to avoid complete take over by Germany.
You are probably thinking of Sweden. It maintained its independence but
traded extensively with the Germans. Or possibly of Denmark, where the
king remained in office during the German occupation.
> > You must be mistaking Norway with Finland. Finland had some sort of
> > unknown agreement with Russia not to be invaded and incorporated.
> >
> > --
> > ____ Julian Buczek|buc...@dns.au.com
> > '||_\\ _ _ ___ ___ ___ '|| _
> > || \\ '|| || // \) ' // //_\) ||//
> > _||_// \\_// \\__, //_, \\__, _||\\
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It could be since my European history is so bad. Finland actually
> put up some sort of temporary/stiff resistance to Russian socialism
> early in the century didn't they?
That is putting it mildly. Finland fought a ferocious war with the
Soviet Union before WWII (started by the Russians), in the course of
which very large numbers of Finns and very much larger numbers of
Russians were killed. The Russians won, seized some disputed territory,
but did not attempt to take control of Finland.
After the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, the Finns attacked the
Soviets, regained the territory that had been taken after the
Russo-Finnish war, but did not attempt to go any farther. So insofar as
they were allied to anyone it was to the Germans.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
jddescr...@my-deja.com
David Friedman <dd...@best.com> wrote:
> In article <8vlkuu$sfo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jddescr...@my-deja.com
> wrote:
>
> > In article <3A0FACDF...@iname.com>,
> > Julian Buczek <buc...@iname.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > In the referenced article, jddescr...@my-deja.com writes:
> > > >
> > > > I apologize for my poor history. I guess I was thinking of
Norway
> > > > which had some type of "accomodation" with the hitler socialists
> > > > of WW II in order to avoid complete take over by Germany.
>
> You are probably thinking of Sweden. It maintained its independence
but
> traded extensively with the Germans. Or possibly of Denmark, where
the
> king remained in office during the German occupation.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are right. I was originally thinking of Sweden but I misstated
the situation and was corrected as Sweden being a peaceful neutral
during WW II.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the information. It sounds like if Finland had
the right kind of free people leadership at that time they
could have set up a free people society independent of any
socialists or king's men.
It's hard for me, as an American, to appreciate the socialist
situation in Europe. They have all had so many king's men and
princes and dictators and charletans and such over the centuries
take their lives that it must be very hard for them to believe
in free people values such as America was founded upon. Probably
everyone has some relative or the other who has been enslaved
and abused by some of these social manipulators or the other
so it's easy for them to take up the socialist idea of steal
from your neighbor before he steals from you. I guess the
mentality is about belief in freedom, independence, live and let
live as a national self confidence, a national pride of people
values; belief in the basic independent goodness of people.
With the waves of socialist take over of America we are losing
[maybe have lost] this free people spirit. If it seems
impossible that Europe will ever set up truly free people
societies, free from socialism, it also becomes less likely
that America can ever roll back the waves of socialist take over
without giant disruptions. We know that America still has the
freedom spirit only deeply suppressed and we saw a little of it
in the Ayn Rand, Goldwater, Reagan episodes following the third
wave of socialist take over under johnson,nixon,carter. It will
probably take much greater problems that at the end of the 1970s
before we will see the American freedom spirit reawaken. Movies
like the Mel Gibson video "Patriot" shows that the liberty pride
impulse has not been totally extinguished in the world. He is from
Australia and also did the video "Braveheart" about Scotland trying
to break free from the king's men.
Good seeing. JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lloyd-Jones
"David Friedman" <dd...@best.com> wrote
> You are probably thinking of Sweden. It maintained its independence but
> traded extensively with the Germans. Or possibly of Denmark, where the
> king remained in office during the German occupation.
>
One of the funniest moments in WWII must surely be the time when Churchill
stood up in the House to tell how the German submarine effort was failing:
the Lloyd's of London rate on commercial shipping had declined.
Most of this rate at that time was the insurance of Swedish ships carrying
iron ore to Germany.
-dlj.
Jeffrey Davis
Get a grip. I merely pointed out that there was no big tax cut under
Reagan. I wasn't advocating taxing ourselves to death.
Bruce McGuffin
snipped.
So, like, were you in a religious cult or something,
before you got into Ayn Rand?
Bruce McGuffin
jimC
jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <vklmu5t...@ll.mit.edu>,
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Are you the McGuffin I've heard about when books
> are converted to video and they want a nonsense hook? JD
When books are converted to video, you hear about McGuffin?
You mean you hear voices? Like at an interplanetary pit stop?
God, even when I was into Ayn Rand, I still read limp-wristed
commie pinko masterful story tellers like Truman Capote.
As for the Objectivists (er, sorry, "friends of
Objectivism [tm]") in that phase of my life, I have never
been around people who so lacked all sense of subtlety.
One could walk around the room at socials (at Nathaniel
Branden Institute lectures) and hear the phrase, "Ayn
would say..." It was like "The intent of the
Founding Fathers was..." at a Republican convention.
I remember once the Brandenites were on Stan Freburg's
case for making fun of Lawrence Welk. It's not that anyone
under the age of 65 gave a hoot for Mr. Champagne
Bubbles. (I used to say "under the age of 30", but
it's moved up considerably). It was the idea
that a persnickety comic made fun of art qua
art. Freburg was a hideous example of the degradation
of values. Ah, there's your ART: der liddul Lennon
Sisters. "Girls, how about a little T & A?"
The only people who equaled this dull wittedness were
the left during about 1968 to 1972. Even Mort Sahl
talked of retiring then. All of a sudden, letters
to the editor of the NY Review of Books became very
fractious. You couldn't make a word play without
somebody in a group asking you in a quiet voice,
"Are you a fascist?"
Fortunately in that era, there was still Steve Allen in
the afternoon on local radio who would go out onto Vine
Street and buttonhole the citizenry with hilariously
stupid questions or call up classified advertisers in
the Freep using a falsetto voice.
So this is what I think of Randites: you are
insufferable to be around. And I'm a
card-carrying liberal Democrat with 20 years
of entrepeneurship who at times has made a
wad of dough and fed a few Republicans.
jimC
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Bruce McGuffin <mcgu...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> jddescr...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> snipped.
>
> So, like, were you in a religious cult or something,
> before you got into Ayn Rand?
>
> Bruce McGuffin
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you the McGuffin I've heard about when books
are converted to video and they want a nonsense hook? JD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
jddescr...@my-deja.com
> > > jddescr...@my-deja.com writes:
> > >
> > > snipped.
> > >
> > > So, like, were you in a religious cult or something,
> > > before you got into Ayn Rand?
> > >
> > > Bruce McGuffin
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> >
> > Are you the McGuffin I've heard about when books
> > are converted to video and they want a nonsense hook? JD
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As a liberal Democrat I can understand why you don't
want to exchange information on books about family
values and the Ayn Rand Theories [ART]. You probably
are so busy justifying the monica presidency that you
have little time for ideas about freedom and the good
and happiness. Given this fact why do you keep butting
into my exchanges with others? I have done nothing but
try to respond politely to your "humorous" {at the
level of Steve Allen} queries and will welcome you going
auf to bother someone with more your situational ethics
point of view. Do they still call it Pragmatism or just
the end justifies the means? JD
jimC
>
> In article <3A235C00...@pacbell.net>,
> jimC <jimc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > So this is what I think of Randites: you are
> > insufferable to be around. And I'm a
> > card-carrying liberal Democrat with 20 years
> > of entrepeneurship who at times has made a
> > wad of dough and fed a few Republicans.
> >
> As a liberal Democrat
You too?!
> I can understand why you don't
> want to exchange information on books about family
> values and the Ayn Rand Theories [ART]. You probably
> are so busy justifying the monica presidency that you
> have little time for ideas about freedom and the good
> and happiness. Given this fact why do you keep butting
> into my exchanges with others?
Because I have knowledge of the material being discussed, and
you are my best hope for original acronyms which I can steal
knowing they will never be missed.
Also, someone has to acknowledge poor little bastard phrases
dangling at the door and suffuse them with meaning.
Auf that! Bow wow.
jimC
Bruce McGuffin
> In article <vklmu5t...@ll.mit.edu>,
> Bruce McGuffin <mcgu...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
> > jddescr...@my-deja.com writes:
> >
> > snipped.
> >
> > So, like, were you in a religious cult or something,
> > before you got into Ayn Rand?
> >
> > Bruce McGuffin
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Are you the McGuffin I've heard about when books
> are converted to video and they want a nonsense hook? JD
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
No, that's my cousin [1].
Bruce McGuffin
[1] not nonsense, misleading. Since you like to quote
authority, go find Hitchcock on the subject.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:> > jimC <jimc...@pacbell.net> wrote:And I'm a
> > > card-carrying liberal Democrat with 20 years
> > > of entrepeneurship who at times has made a
> > > wad of dough and fed a few Republicans.
> > >
> > want to exchange information
>
> Was that meant to read "I can understand why you, as a liberal
Democrat...",
> or do you, as a liberal Democrat, understand?
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the correction. I strive to be a free person
so politically I would be closest to Goldwater and President
Reagan and Harry Browne and Allen Keyes amongst recent
politicians.
Good seeing. JD
Trigger Hippo
Hash: SHA1
Ayn Rand was a fart-moralled, stone-headed old prune. And anyone who cites
her "thought" approvingly is an idiot.
I wouldn't piss on Ayn Rand even if she wan't dead.
The
- --
"[T]he Higgs Boson is the cause of the Gulf War Syndrome." -New York Times
(C) 2001 by 'TheDavid(TM)' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOntZ4xz40he1RakNEQKe/QCfR+2oXu0mQqP8rjLE3ZK58MN4xRUAn3bs
EEciDKqLcZ+BeonJSHhrUTw7
=RukR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Trigger Hippo
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 bgue...@my-deja.com wrote:
[...]
>The USSR had been engaged negative capital formation and stagnant GDP
>growth since the 70's. The fact that the system was not _critically_
>ill in 1990 in no way disproves the fact that it was sick. Gorbachev's
>reforms simply pushed a chronically ill patient into an acute condition.
Even if true, this stll has nothing to do with Ayn Rand and R.W. Reagan.
The fact remains that the "Soviet" nomenklatura, to preserve their perks
and make a buck, stole whatever they could carry and sold the rest for
cheap scrap. That this sounds a lot like what Randism-Reaganism would
prescribed is nothing but coincidence.
It was simply looting, and looting predates either "thinker."
Sheeshingly,
The
- --
"[T]he Higgs Boson is the cause of the Gulf War Syndrome." -New York Times
(C) 2001 by 'TheDavid(TM)' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOntdlRz40he1RakNEQLd4QCg2lhlFWGxL+2nGOwqFmdfZ6hf6NYAoOeE
VBnBW+wXK19bv8km+bJTZ0MO
=U5uC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
jddde...@my-deja.com
were the first world thinkers to identify socialist slavery and
socialist forcings with various types of looting. Inherent in the
socialist impulse is the concept that socialist looting is "good"
because the socialists claim their intent is "good". To appreciate
the enormous free people insights of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan
you have to remember what the academic socialists were always
saying about the wonders of socialist Keynesianism and how the
giant Russian collectives and computer facilities were so successful
and were economically burying the free people of America with each
new five year plan. Many of these academic socialists are still
around but now quiet about their past wild enthusiasm for socialism.
See the book VICTORY for some of their quotes before the Russian
socialist collapse. The fact that they were able to deceive the
world about the socialist value of the rubble by a FACTOR of 1000 shows
the size of Keynesian socialist shock that is now rocking the world
economies. It was forcast in "Capitalism;The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand.
Good seeing. JD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
marko_...@my-deja.com
Bernard Guerrero wrote:
> > The USSR had been engaged in negative capital formation
> > and stagnant GDP growth since the 70's. The fact that
> > the system was not _critically_ ill in 1990 in no way
> > disproves the fact that it was sick. Gorbachev's
> > reforms simply pushed a chronically ill patient into
> > an acute condition.
Trigger Hippo wrote:
> Even if true, this still has nothing to do with Ayn Rand
> and R.W. Reagan. The fact remains that the "Soviet"
> nomenklatura, to preserve their perks and make a buck, stole
> whatever they could carry and sold the rest for cheap scrap.
> That this sounds a lot like what Randism-Reaganism would
> prescribe is nothing but coincidence. It was simply looting,
> and looting predates either "thinker."
And the end result of all the looting by the Soviet nomenklatura
is a society where today maybe half of all transactions are
carried out by barter trade or promissory notes instead of
cash. Old arms factories in the middle of Siberia that should
have been allowed to go bankrupt were instead converted into
plants making consumer goods and are being articially propped
up because their present robber-owners have a stake in their
continued operation. To call the present chaotic state of
affairs a 'market economy' is nothing but propaganda. It's just
the ruins of the old planned economy, not a new functioning
economic system. The whole 'transition' from communism to
capitalism was mismanaged in a spectacularly stupid way. What
should have been done is a slow, gradual shift toward a
market-oriented system, with the building of the political,
legal, social and other institutions necessary for a modern
industrial economy to function. None of this was done. There
was simply the privatization of all state property at
ridiculously undervalued prices.
With Putin now in power some of crooks who were allied with
Yeltsin are being called into account for their past looting.
There is an international arrest warrant out for Boris Berezovsky,
who embezzled hundreds of millions of dollars out of Aeroflot.
But even today, ten years after the bottom fell out of the
Soviet economy, there is no concerted effort to deal with the
mess left by the shock privatization of the early 1990s.
The Russian elite is concerned exclusively with maintaining
its present wealth and power. Any change in social arrangements,
any reform toward a more sane and functioning system, would
threaten their status.
Nor is the West concerned with improving the Russian economy.
On the contrary, the poorer Russia is, the less it can spend on
its military, so the less of a threat it poses to the U.S.
government, who ultimately calls the shots in the G7, IMF,
Paris Club and other internatinal organizations involved with
Russia. There was a debate in the White House under former
President Bill Clinton about whether Russia should be integrated
quickly into the world economy, or isolated because it still
poses a grave threat to U.S. national security. Clinton and
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright argued in favour of
isolation, and they won. New President George W. Bush is unlikely
to change this containment policy. On the contrary, his new
defence minister Donald Rumsfeld is in Europe to explain why
the U.S. needs to ignore the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
with Russia and build a National Missile Defence shield.
What should Bush do? Well, at a minimum, he could push for a
rescheduling of the 48 billion dollars of Soviet-era debt, which
weighs heavily on the impoverished Russian government, preventing
it from undertaking the necessary reform efforts. Putin, despite
his tough talk, is ultimately willing to play along with the West,
and keep up the onerous payments on this debt. Putin reprimanded
and overruled Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov when that official
tried to take a tougher line with the West on the debt rescheduling
issue.
And if the West really cared about the economic revival of Russia,
it could organize a new Marhall Plan for the former communist
countries. Of course nothing like that was even considered,
because there is no Communist threat to the capitalist system
to justify the extra spending as there was after the Second
World War. The present arragement in Russia is similar to that
in many Third World countries, with a corrupt and inept
'comprador' bourgeoisie unable and unwilling to do what it
takes to develop its own country economically. Russia has now
effectively joined the group of underdeveloped nations, and
been integrated into the service periphery of the world
capitalist system.
jddde...@my-deja.com
It's clear that once socialism has control of a society
no evolving pattern will ever lead to freedom and free
markets and economic ownership by average people [family
business capitalism]. The inevitable destructions of the
society are answered by a change in the king men's structure
of socialist control. We could say that the Russian socialism
collapse that Ayn Rand predicted and Ronald Reagan triggered
only resulted in a shift from the left socialism collectives
of the socialist party to the right socialism of cartels and
giant corporations on the hitler socialism model. An illuminating
case that confirms your example is in the titanium industry.
Naturally the socialist bureaus had the largest industry in the
world since natural material ravaging/stripping is a natural
match for socialism. Now they sell titanium crowbars in US hardware
stores for next to nothing as a military "conversion" product.
Good seeing. JD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Hayes
Trigger Hippo wrote in a message to All:
TH> From: Trigger Hippo <thed...@tsoft.com>
TH> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
TH> Hash: SHA1
TH> Ayn Rand was a fart-moralled, stone-headed old prune. And anyone
TH> who cites her "thought" approvingly is an idiot.
Ah well, now we know.
TH> I wouldn't piss on Ayn Rand even if she wan't dead.
You you piss on other people who aren't dead?
Keep well
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail: haye...@yahoo.com
FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
http://www.fmlynet.org