In the late afternoon of Christmas Eve last Wednesday, sometime after my parents and I arrived at my brother’s house to celebrate the holiday with him, my sister-in-law (his wife), and my niece (their daughter), my brother, my dad, and I sat at the table in his kitchen discussing politics (that is, his brand of “right-wing”/conservative with a heavy dose of libertarianesque Republican politics being monopolized in the discussion). These discussions have always been a politically religious tradition in the Barnett family on an annual basis, even if they are held on Thanksgiving Day and Xmas Eve. My mom, my sister-in-law, and my niece stepped out a few times for intervals of five to ten minutes, during which my dad, my brother, and I got into our political chats. (Interestingly enough, my sister-in-law, according to my brother, has grown quite intolerant of the political conversations that are often held at his house or anywhere with all of us together for dinner. Apparently, she can’t stomach such discourse during those times together, from what I can gather.)

At one point during the talks, my brother, my father, and I found ourselves in a discussion over the ObamaCare bill that the Senate had just voted to pass its version of it. (The final vote tally is 60 to 39, with Biden presiding over the key vote on the mandate.) Now the Senate and the House (and even Eric confirmed this at the table) are scrambling to match their provisions contained in their versions of the bill, so that they can draft a final bill to be passed by both chambers of the House and Obama to sign it into law.

(Keep in mind that, all his best intentions notwithstanding, my brother idealistically — but not erroneously — believes that the law will be successfully challenged by the courts on constitutional grounds. It’s possible that the U.S. Supreme Court can and might overturn the impending law, but given the fact that most conservatives — not to mention their right-wing populists and allies – have historically gone along with government programs once and long after they have passed, it stands to reason that this program will remain in place and be nearly impossible to abolish at the federal level.)

At one point in the conversation, (I’m paraphrasing here!), my brother states that when he talks to people regarding health care, they respond, “We have a right to health care!” My brother argues against that proposition (assuming those people with whom he spoke are of the progressive mindset), claiming that no one has a right to it because he takes the constitutional position that an individual “has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (While the praxeology per se is valid, it is not a good argument to make against the so-called public option because it is a cookie cutter talking point that libertarianesque conservatives like him take.)

The reason for his argument against the “public option”? He says that it’s taking money from those who didn’t pay for it and giving it to those who can’t. It’s a fair and valid point, and quite a solid libertarian one at that. Who can rightfully argue against that? (The progressives can make a counter-argument in response to that standpoint, but that’s a subject for another post.)

Of course, I interjected by saying that the same argument can be made about Social Security, and I made that point after he applied that same principle to Medicare. He even agreed that Social Security “should never have been created in the first place.” It’s nice to know that we concur on the principles, because his talking points are libertarian to the core. I even pointed out that those programs absolutely should never been created in the first place, and that I have told my listeners and guests on my BlogTalkRadio.com Internet talk radio show Liberty Cap Talk Live (specifically, some of those listeners who really don’t get the point yet) that, once those programs are created, they eventually morph into something other than they were originally intended to be. (Interestingly enough, he agreed. I did even bring up my criticisms of the Big Players of the insurance industry who had a stake in this mess, but we were cut off because my mother, my sister-in-law, and my niece returned from their “in-the-garage” cigarette break.)

But this is what I wanted to ask him, and I wish I had the opportunity to ask him this but didn’t have a chance to do so: “Do you oppose or support the big corporate players in the insurance industry (specifically the big corporate insurance firms like Blue Cross Blue Shield and BlueCare Network) that are on board with ObamaCare?” Furthermore, I wanted to ask him, “Do you oppose welfare in all of its forms? Or do you oppose welfare only for the poor, but support corporate welfare (or corporatism) all the way?”

I suspect he supports the latter. After all, his admission of his supporting the government bailouts of the Big Three and the automotive industry that transpired in the last few months of Bush’s final term of his presidency (when I was at his house for Christmas Eve last year) is an overwhelming indication of that.

Herein lies the heart of the problem with my brother’s thinking, including the mindset that dominates the old libertarian movement. The mentality that has long pervaded the libertarian movement is this: “Despite government intervention in the economy, corporations are still needed, are not the creature of the state, and are not protected by but are victims of the state. Oh, and we do need limited liability laws to protect the interests of our shareholders, specifically the small ones.”

Thus, in corporate libertarianese (particularly those espoused by those self-proclaimed libertarians from both the CATO Institute and Lew Rockwell’s Ludwig von Mises Institute), corporations are the apotheosis of laissez-faire and that they can exist without state-sanctioned privileges and guarantees and state-furnished subsidies. (Imagine the health insurance corporations that stand to gain everything once the state-provided, vile ObamaCare is set in stone. After all, consider how much tax money is riding on this bill by the entire corporate insurance establishment that’s colluded with the state with this bill.) Furthermore, it’s also another reason why many progressives revile libertarians for adopting Ben Steinan/Lawrence Kudlowesque rhetoric that has significantly dominated the vast majority of the movement, thus harming and scathing it in its entirety.

“Left-libertarian” a.k.a. ideologically pure libertarian/anarchist/agorist Sheldon Richman, who has been in the old libertarian movement for nearly 40 years, had this to say about the state of libertarianism as it stands today:

There are also good strategic reasons for associating libertarianism with the left and not with the right. The modern movement has, despite futile protests that we pro-Liberty activists are “neither left nor right,” been placed on the right as sort of a hip variant of conservatism. Some of this comes from the observers’ lack of perceptiveness, but much of it is the movement’s own fault. A good deal of libertarian commentary sounds like corporate apologetics.

Sheldon is right on the money. Today’s “modern movement” is seen by progressives and many other nonlibertarians as a “cool” aberration of the modern conservative movement. This is not a good PR image for the movement, whether we care to admit it or not. It does not bode well for us in the long run.

Furthermore, libertarians who take — and not to mention embrace — the unconvincing (and largely unbelievable) “neither left nor right” stance have given their adversaries excuses to think that conservatives and libertarians come from the same family when that is not so. Conservatives are fundamentally different from true advocates of liberty (whether those advocates use the label “libertarian” or not). Moreover, the movement has been infiltrated by shady opportunists and collectivists who seek to use the state to their advantage. Look at alleged “libertarians” like Wayne Allyn Root whose most recent book reads like a playbook for a Republican football team and former Libertarian Party activist and now retired Republican talk radio show host Larry Elder who fled the LP a few years ago because of its old non-interventionist position on foreign policy! He even has supported Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan consistently and the government’s incessant intervention of the economy via corporate protectionism and mercantalism. Is that the image that we as pro-Liberty activists want to portray?

(Furthermore, how about the pro-preemptive war comments that GOP senatorial candidate Peter Schiff recently made? How would anti-war nonliberal leftists respond to that rubbish? Or how about Rand Paul’s recent statements on the Gitmo detainees in his senatorial campaign’s press release on the issue? What are civil libertarians and antiwar activists supposed to take away from that crud? Many of the defenders of those two candidates are “libertarian” [actually conservative] supporters of the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul wing of the movement who, while trying not to come off as not very corporatist in rhetoric, appear to be very apologetic of the corporate state. Some of them take the “libertarian Republican” [quite an oxymoron to boot!], or what should be called the neolibertarian, position that an aggressive foreign policy and a solid national defense [conservative concepts, by the way!] will keep us safe from would-be terrorists and produce peace only by means of an offensive war.)

This is what “free market anticapitalist” Kevin Carson was referring to when he coined the term “vulgar libertarianism” — the brand of libertarianism practiced by those “libertarians” who believe that today’s corporate market would be what the free market entails if decades of government intervention and central planning had not been in the way. When libertarians have that attitude about the marketplace in that fashion, then they give the progressives legitimate reasons to discredit us and persecute us, thus making our jobs harder or even nearly impossible to remove the state from our lives.

Let’s not forget that many free marketeers come off as very combative, very belligerent, and very antagonistic when a morsel of sympathy is given to working class laborers who are the true victims of government taxes, regulations, and pro-state business/corporate guarantees, protections, subsidies, and privileges. A number of those libertarians who complain about this spew this nonsensical attitude that a free market (especially one without state privileges, guarantees, and the like) would not last very long and that the current market, despite the government’s incessant interventions, could not exist in the absence of the state. That assertion tells me several things: that ilk lacks an extraordinary amount of deep perception and objectivity, certainly fathoms the concept of a free market but has never experienced it in a real sense, and has never fathomed how the pains of government intervention have affected the poor and the blue-collar middle “working” class on all levels, physical, economic, mental, and psychological.

When libertarians become indifferent and cold to people who experience true cruelty and misery by defending rotten employers who treat their good employees like a pile of rubbish, it gives nonlibertarians and progressives an excuse to attack free enterprise and side with the state. Of course, there are rotten employees too, and that’s a given in any business, yet that’s not the point. Not only that, it’s an unfair talking point, because libertarians (and conservatives as well) who employ that argument lump in the good laborers with the bad.

And that also raises another paramount standpoint as well: when shady, politically-protected firms abuse their good workers, and those libertarians come to their defense despite all that nonsense, that alienates those workers, thus pushing them into the arms of the politically-connected unions, the bureaucrats, and the politicians who will use them as political and campaign fodder to score some political points, even on the campaign trail. That transpires all the time during every election and legislative cycle. If the politicians, as opportunistic as they are, capitalize on the pains of the working class by appearing to be champions of the poor and the middle class, then those groups will flock to them and see their employers and the entire marketplace as enemies of the “working man.”

This is a massive reason why libertarians of all stripes in the Liberty movement lose on economic liberty big time every single time, before, during, and after every election season. They will keep losing until they stop seeing their workers as albatrosses on the necks of their businesses and understand that, without their customers and employees, they don’t have their businesses. If libertarians and employers do that, then the working class and the poor, who are the victims of the state like the entrepreneurs and every non-politically-connected businesses are, will side with them and support a real return to the free market. Why can’t they just do that? What have we go to lose if we do exactly that?

The real advocates of liberty are the original leftists who support and advocate a voluntary society based on mutual consent, not the kind of society that these corporatists and their government cronies want to engineer for all of us.

The Bounty in all respects may not be considered to be triumph of film. From time to time it drags on but what sets it apart from its predecessors is that its portrayal of Bligh carries much more depth. The Bounty does not simply show men as good and evil but as more complex figures in the at times, wildest of circumstances.

Bligh is played here by Anthony Hopkins and is done so wonderfully. In the movie he is at once being court-marshaled (Laurence Olivier appears in these sequences) for the events that took place aboard ship. Unlike the past films here his actions seem to have more logical motivations rather than him being a man taking pride and enjoying the task of inflicting pain on his subordinates. Them being played by Liam Neeson and Daniel Day-Lewis. Yet, for all the depth Hopkins displays in his performance and talent shown, Mel Gibson comes up short and hardly retains presence periodically. His role requires that he take on the role of a leader but instead fades into the background time after time.

I like the way the movie was directed taking the approach of using flashbacks from the view of Hopkins. It gave the movie a sort of originality which has proven to be very hard to do with remakes, in particular this story. This film though was strictly carried by the performance of Anthony Hopkins and his complex portrayal of Captain Bligh.

Many influential US economists openly cling to Adam Smith’s “invisible Hand” theory of efficient markets over 200 years after the “Wealth of Nations” was written.  This dated theory may be our greatest national threat within because post WWII corporate mercantilism is now contributing to the fall of the US economy.

A form of mercantilism, yes mercantilism is the vehicle of China’s economic dominance today.  Over the years, China has brilliantly tweaked it’s economic model to take advantage of our beliefs in a “free market” and to fix the market in it’s favor.

For years we’ve known that China can virtually make anything and everything manufactured in the US for a fraction of the cost we can make it.  This is not free market competition as there isn’t any competition to speak of.  We are witnessing economic annihilation to a degree that is certain to topple the floundering US hegemony.

If we were a giant shoe store, we’d be going out of business.  Against this new age mercantilism, our “invisible hand” can’t win and are we assured of failure and even speed up the process internally.  Unchecked, corporations will continue to capitalize on the short term cost advantage, pocketing increased profit while exporting our remaining wealth and increasing national debt.  The complacent hand is seldom merciful, yet we do nothing.

The writer of this post suggests visiting Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen and spends his time scheming on how to bring money back into the US economy 99 cents at a time.

(For further exploration in the the flaws of the invisible hand, there is a great article about this in Psychology Today .)

Breaking news. Bloomberg and other sources report that duties up to 31% will be imposed on Chinese produced OCTG (Oil Country Tubular Goods) on the basis of their production with the support of unfair government subsidizes. Average duties are expected to be about 21%, according to the Commerce Department preliminary report.

Like it or not 6.8 billion people live here. We need to trade fairly.

In my International Trade Class, we discuss the subject of mercantilism, which is the best way to describe China’s trade policy. When I was in college, the Chinese called the US “imperialists.” This  Department of Commerce finding supports the claim made by many laid off US manufacturing workers that today China, Inc.  is a “commercial imperialist.”

We believe that this case and the forthcoming Chinese tire case (see our blog story dated July 2) are bellwethers of the road ahead for trade relations between the US and China. Trade need not be a zero sum or negative sum game. But artificially manipulating a firms “comparative advantage” is not the way that trade can be sustained in the world today.

China produced 38% of world crude steel production in 2008 according to World Steel Association . With that much power must come discipline.

Harm to  the US manufacturing industry continues as a result of both the past and current adminstration’s  failure to act on China’s mercantilist trade practices and predatory pegged currency scheme. We  are glad to see  the Commerce Department is at least functioning and reviewing trade cases. 

Hey Washington, how about some change? 

How has the impact of Chinese currency manipulation or mercantilism/subsidies  impacted your company or your employment? Post your comment here.

photo credit : thechinabeat http://thechinabeat.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html

The video below is from a 1978 debate between Milton Friedman and members of the student body at Stanford University. In one segment, Dr. Friedman receives a question on the government’s responsibility to the poor. He calmly replies that the government holds no responsibility over poverty, only people do.

Agitated murmurs from the audience can be heard as a student shouts, “Have you ever been on welfare…or poor,” implying that a wealthy economist, such as Milton Friedman, could not empathize with poor people and thus could not prescribe a proper remedy.

Milton Friedman quickly replies, “Of course…but that is all irrelevant. Is there one of you who is going to say you don’t want a doctor to treat you for cancer unless he himself has had cancer?”

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

As my wife wades through an exceptionally long book about Reconstruction, I have heard a good deal over meals about nineteenth century idealizing of free labor and mercantilism. While struggling to make sense of “The Street,” I decided to use those principles as a lens: the chapter is a hyperbolized, satirical vision of the benefits of free labor, touting New Bedford as a marvel of race- and class-shattering opportunity. In New Bedford, whaling enterprises bring together not only sailors of the wide world, but inland dwellers as well, “who have felled forests, and now seek to drop the axe and snatch the whale-lance.” We also see absurdly foppish country dandies, overdressed for the work to come, having romanticized the sea into notions of easy money. Ishmael presents New Bedford as a land of plenty, not fertile for crops, but fertile for business, transforming a “bony” and “howling” landscape into a paradise of civilization.

It’s all a little over-the-top, and I’m left with a sense that although free market ideals were in some ways liberal, democratizing concepts at the time, forward thinkers saw in these ideals the seeds of exploitation and fraud that have come to plague our world ever since. In the end, only the few live in New Bedford’s “patrician-like houses” or enjoy New Bedford’s “opulent” gardens, and the rest simply exist in a pleasure dome of smoke and mirrors — dangerous cannibals, fancy clothes, endless oil, manly posturing, and musky women. A whaler’s life for me!

Chapter 6: The Street

Freaks and dudes
Are finally intermingling!
Freaks and dudes
From agitating sea!
Shadows cast,
A flame in every window.
Pallid sheen
In the beacon of dreams.

Bloomed from the crags,
Terrific altarpiece of meticulous fiends.
Shade joining hands
With every gift of creation
From negotiable light.

How now,
A yet unrealized prerogative
Of nations
Professed to welcome the world,
How now,
A yet unrealized prerogative
Is here,
On the outpost of time.

Freaks and dudes
Together on the corner!
Freaks and dudes
Embracing one another!
From the rocks
A flower of gentility
Blooms beside
Every sibilant tide.

How now,
A yet unrealized prerogative
Of nations
Professed to welcome the world,
How now,
A yet unrealized prerogative
Is here,
On the outpost of time.

(c) and (p) 2008 Patrick Shea
Words and music written by Patrick Shea August 27, 2008
All parts performed, arranged, and recorded by Patrick Shea June 8, 2009

Asta simt. E halucinant cata prostitutie, cat mercantilism, cat jigodism e in jurul nostru.  Cum banul stapaneste suflete si guverneaza viata. Cum jigodii se strang sa judece alte jigodii. Cum cei care vin sunt mai canalii decat cei care pleaca. Cum prostia serveste in a strange bani. Si cum nu ne invatam minte si asteptam doar ajutorul divin.

Ascultati ce zicea Janis Joplin.

In yesterday’s post we discussed mercantilism and whether or not some of the characteristics of that system resonate with how our modern economy works or the way that some people would like it to work. Obviously, it would take some efforts by the crown to implement this type of framework and there would be resistance by the colonies as well. Especially considering we also discussed in another post that colonists had become used to having a say in their tax system in the English colonies.

Just as a quick recap, mercantilism was an economic policy that stresses that the wealth of a country is what exclusively determines its strength. Countries scoured the world to obtain gold, silver, colonies, and raw resources. In this set-up there is total government regulation of the economy and the sole purpose of the colony is to provide raw materials for the “Mother Country”.

At the beginning of the mercantilist system in the English colonies, Britain imposed the Navigation Acts to establish three rules:

1. Trade to and from the colonies must be carried on English ships.
2. All goods imported to the colonies must pass through English ports.
3. The colonies could sell certain enumerated goods (luxury items) to England only.

From both perspectives (British or Colonist), the Navigation Acts can be viewed as good or bad. From a colonists’ perspective New England shipbuilding expanded, colonial tobacco had a monopoly in England, and the British military provided protection from the French, Spanish, and Native Americans. On the other hand there was limited colonial manufacturing, low tobacco prices, and colonists paid high prices for manufactured goods.

The Navigation Acts of 1650-1673 were the beginning of colonial resentment towards England with the final straw eventually coming with taxes after the French & Indian War.

If you were a colonist, would you prefer the positives of the Navigation Acts (including the protection) or would you resent the king’s control over the colonial economy when considering the three rules that were being implemented?

Can you think of any instances in our country, or the world, where this type of control seems to be evident even if cloaked in a different name, or do modern governments implement different measures of control?

Mercantilism was an economic theory practiced during the 1600s to 1800s that stressed a country’s need to have maximum amounts of imports while limiting its dependence on foreign competitors. The strength of a nation, under mercantilism, was based solely on the wealth of a nation. Countries, such as Britain, would exploit their colonies by bringing all raw materials to England and turning them into manufactured goods while also accumulating massive amounts of gold and silver in exchange for exports. This type of economic belief led to the development of programs like the triangular trade where countries were constantly trying to accumulate wealth through manipulation of its colonies and, in this case, exploitation of human labor. The tenets of mercantilism are summed up by Austrian Lawyer and Scholar Phillip von Hornick in his 1684 book Austria Over All, If She Only Will ¹.

• Every inch of a country’s soil should be used for agriculture, mining, or manufacturing.
• All raw materials found in a country be used in domestic manufacture, since finished goods have a higher value than raw materials.
• A large, working population be encouraged.
• All export of gold and silver be prohibited and all domestic money be kept in circulation.
• All imports of foreign goods be discouraged as much as possible.
• Where certain imports are indispensable they be obtained at first hand, in exchange for other domestic goods instead of gold and silver.
• As much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that can be finished [in the home country].
• Opportunities be constantly sought for selling a country’s surplus manufactures to foreigners, so far as necessary, for gold and silver.
• No importation be allowed if such foods are sufficiently and suitably supplied at home.

As we observe these nine different components to what he believed would be an effective national economy in the 17^th century according to the von Hornick, consider if any of these principals parallel how our economy functions today? In truth, I would argue that there are no true capitalist societies on the planet as governments often aid businesses and violate the idea of the laissez-faire economy. Consider the way that AIG and other companies have received economic bailouts in recent months. Political ideology aside, this very practice violates what Adam Smith had in mind with regards to a capitalist society.

There are several components in this type of framework that are clearly not practiced today, but I would argue that given the opportunity they would be welcomed with open arms. Clearly the language has to be different with regards to gold and silver, but consider the way that oil is sought after by the United States government. Right or wrong, we have continued to emphasize some of the principles above as we progress into a more globalized society. It is almost as though we believe that a regression in economic theory will prevent a progression of global policy and economic evolution.

It didn’t work out so well for the British, did it? Thoughts?

¹ Ekelund, Robert B., Jr. and Hébert, Robert F. (1997). A History of Economic Theory and Method (4th ed.). Waveland Press [Long Grove, Illinois]. p. 40-41. ISBN 1-57766-381-0. (via Wikipedia.com accessed on June 28, 2009)

Sam: A 6 foot brunette with the sharpest blue eyes, a luminous complexion, well- built structure, casual smile, and the personality that everyone wants. His shaggy hair comes right above his eyebrows, and his nose slopes perfectly down. He is “in love” with Sally. Sam also pretends not to be friends with Joel, however, he does value their friendship. Sam’s mother works at the school cafeteria, has an older brother named David, who in high school, and also has an older sister named Sharon, who is in college. 

Sally: An energetic, spirited, outgoing girl. Her straight, sometimes curly black hair comes a little past her shoulders, and she is an average 5 foot 5. Her glasses rest gently on her nose, while her mouth always shows a smile, and within that smile are her unusually white teeth. She’s friends with everybody and can’t stop her laughing, which sometimes, almost chokes her. Sally secretly is “in love” with Sam. 

Joel: A short, brunette boy who has teddy bear eyes and a warming smile. His athletic abilities are limited, and his jokes may sometimes fall short, yet his “friends” secretly appreciate him. He is often bullied, but that doesn’t stop him from being himself. Joel likes Toby. 

Toby: A petit girl, with a China-doll face. Her black hair sways against her back, and her Asian feature show. Her small, brown eyes reflect her sweet, yet diabolical nature inside. She is quiet, reserved and often hides her personality. Although Joel may like her, she does not like Joel back. 

Shane: A well built Korean teenage freshman who holds an unexpected personality. His short hair stands straight, and his gentle brown eyes contrast with his sharp eyebrows. His glasses make him look intelligent and wise, while his athletic build throws away the nerdy look. He is Sam’s neighbor and used to attend the school that Sam, Sally, Joel, Cabby and Toby attend. He is a good friend, ready to back up his friends. 

David/Dave: The brother of Sam, a senior in high school, holds many dark secrets and has lived a confusing past. 

Cabby: He is a friend of Joel and Sam, also knows David and Shane. He is a 5′9, lanky, brunette and has hazel eyes. His deep voice can sometimes be pendafile-ish, but tries to be a good person. 

Ms. Puchi: Co-worker of Sam’s mom, also a lunch lady, who also holds many secrets. 

Tanner: the new kid. Lacks the requirements to be popular, but used to be close with Sally.

Zilele trecute, chiar inainte de Paste am primit o noua lectie despre ce inseamna societatea de consum si felul in care isi intinde “tentaculele” chiar si asupra a ceea ce s-ar numi “domenii ale spiritului”. Bineinteles ca ma aflam cu sora mea intr-un supermarket- ca, vorba aia, ne pregateam de Paste asa cum noi, oamenii, stim sa facem cel mai bine: prin cumparaturi.Ma rog, aveam nervii intinsi la maximum dupa o cursa interminabila cu caruciorul, cu toate elementele ei de rigoare: impunsaturi, ciocniri, blocaje, cuvinte de duh etc . Ideea e ca n-am gasit mare lucru si ne-am asezat cuminti si resemnate la o casa, nu fara a avea un sentiment de inferioritate din cauza caruciorului nostru  vizibil modest in comparatie cu celelalte, mult mai plinute si mai sanatoase, semn ca proprietarii lor se ingrijisera cum se cuvine de cele trebuincioase Sarbatorii Pascale. O astfel de persoana era domnul din fata noastra…saraca banda rulanta cu greu facea fata pachetelor si pachetelelor de tot felul cu care o impovarase crestinul respectiv. Pana aici, nimic deosebit. “Epifania” s-a produs in momentul in care, din multimea de cozonaci, sticle cu suc, carnati si alte cele, a scos o lumanare cu suport, din aceea rosie avand o icoana pe post de eticheta. ..un must al Pastelui, care nu putea lipsi de pe rafturile magazinului. Am avut in fata cea mai geniala (si in acelasi timp cea mai kitschoasa) imagine a ceea ce inseamna astazi sarbatoarea si religia. Biata lumanare devenise un obiect pur comercial, fusese total deposedata de incarcatura ei spirituala si nu era nici mai presus, nici mai prejos decat o banala punga de zahar. Am trecut destul de repede peste senzatia de scarbire si ne-am amuzat de situatie, constiente fiind ca asta e cursul normal al lucrurilor in contextul actual si ca nu putem schimba nimic…putem cel mult sa ne “revoltam” pe blog, dar ce folos? In fond, e o chestie de perceptie subiectiva.

Eu nu am in nici un caz pretentia ca sunt o persoana spirituala sau religioasa…dimpotriva, merg la biserica din Paste in Paste, iar atunci nici macar nu simt mare lucru, insa incerc sa regasesc acea autenticitate ce insotea fiecare mare sarbatoare religioasa din vremea copilariei mele…uneori reusesc, insa de cele mai multe ori, nu. Si imi pare foarte rau pentru lucrul asta. Insa eu macar constientizez aceasta nevoie de autenticitate si incerc sa-i pastrez macar forma, daca nu si fondul.

Fie ca Sarbatoarea Invierii sa va lumineze, via supermarket, sufletele!

Amy Goodman of DN! interviews Prof. Walden Bello on the G-20 Summit.

1 Apr 09 | Democracy Now!

“As Obama Arrives in London for G20, Tens of Thousands Gather to Protest in the Streets” (15:46):

President Obama is in London today ahead of the G20 summit, where world leaders are gathering to discuss the global economic crisis. Tens of thousands of protesters from around the world are gathering in London to demonstrate against the G20 talks and call for economic justice and environmental accountability. Several large demonstrations directed at the failed banking and financial sectors are expected today, April 1st, which some protest organizers are calling “Financial Fools Day.” We speak with Walden Bello of Focus on the Global South.

Walden Bello, senior analyst of Focus on the Global South and professor of sociology at the University of the Philippines.

Part One (10:16):

Part Two (5:40):

RELATED:

• G-20 Protesters Besiege London Banks (1 Apr 09)
• Property Rights and the G-20 Protests – Podcast by Brad Spangler (1 Apr 09)
• Russia Backs Return to Gold Standard to Solve Financial Crisis (29 Mar 09)

The more things change, the more they stay the same, say the French. And it would certainly seem so, as we regard the economic consequences of what amounts to a modern rehash of the old Mercantilism of King Louis XIV and his ministers, Cardinal Richelieu and the Bureaucrat-extraordinaire, Colbert. For modern America differs very little from that ancient economic tyranny that existed in France under the “Sun King”. True, the poor and indolent are no longer whipped, or sent off to the galleys. Habitual drunks are no longer put into pillory. But the effects of what amounts to a vast system of Mercantilism, administered by the Congressional Bipartisan spendthrifts, with the cooperation and collaboration of the FED, and with the cheerleading of Obama’s rhetorical riffs, are virtually the same on the poor and middle class: unceasing toil to cope with higher taxes and loss of purchasing power, and the soon coming tsunami of inflation. This inflation will be caused by the ridiculous and completely irresponsible massive spending increases, designed to make sure that all the wealthy corporate interests, and the vested interests of the lobbyists and the Congressmen themselves, who in many cases are wealthy, and have substantial estates, are not affected by the current financial disinflation. (And please note, a disinflation differs from a deflation, in that it is a slowdown in the rate of inflation, not an across the board lowering of prices in virtually every commodity and service.)

Meanwhile, across the pond, we see the spoiled brats of the Left having their “feel-good” marches in London, and Europe. Silverwolf made the sickening mistake of tuning in to the BBC, to listen to its in-house panel discussion on the G20 meeting and the current economic crisis, before a roomful of British humans. It was the usual gallimaufry of misguided economic claptrap one hears virtually everywhere, except at the Mises Institute, in the economic statements and opinions of Congressman Ron Paul, and in the political agenda of the Libertarian Party. Of course, they blamed “the bankers”, who after all were only exploiting the system which the US Congress, and the legislatures of Europe, had set up decades ago. They blamed that vague thing called “greed”, though Silverwolf notes that they never seem to blame a poor person or a spendthrift who is skint because they have spend all their money on some greedy pursuit, be it gambling, drugs, overeating, constant vacations, or what you will. Why is it not “greedy”, to be greedy for tobacco or food, or good times? Are not the unions greedy when they demand more than their labour is worth, while their restrictionist minimum wage laws cut out labour competition, enabling them to secure those above-market wage rates at the expense of the non-union worker? Moreover, we know that the call for “full employment” is really a call for universal slavery, by the expedient of constant inflation and crushing taxations, both for income and “retirement”, which means that what the worker can manage to save in the bank after all these government excisions is never secure, because the FED, or the Bank of England, or whatever group of government professional inflationists you name, can destroy the value of the worker’s savings virtually overnight, though they do it through a constant but steady erosion of the purchasing power of fiat currency, helped along by sudden spurts they euphemistically call “blips”. So it is not surprising that the “Leftist intellectuals” call for “full employment”; not only do they have a cockroach’s intellectual understanding of economics, they also need their fellow men to be paying into the tax-welfare system to bring in the funds they live off of on their “grants” and “doles”, and “unemployment” and “disability”. But, of course, many of the journalists and presenters at the BEEB, as well as its horrendous American counterpart, National Public Radio, would be in the dole line permanently if not for their guaranteed income from the State.

Yet, in that whole BBC audience, there was not one voice that said, “This chaos is caused by Socialism itself, and the system of Central Banks that can rock the value of the money up and down at will on a daily basis. It is because of the regulation of the money supply by a Mercantilist economic system, instead of a Free-Market Capitalist system, that is at the root of the problem.” It is when one listens to the drivel that comes out of these well-intentioned protesters, that one realises why the world is in such an economic mess. And the mess, for these people, has not lead to one iota of economic insight. It’s still time for feel-good marches, sloganeering, and “Eat the Bankers” inciting to riot. Howzabout “Eat the Spendthrifts and Inflationists”?

Fortunately, there is a large sector of the American and European public who are very sceptical of Sun-King Obama XIV’s Mercantilist plan for America, and his “forgot to pay my taxes” Chief Minister, Cardinal Geithner. They realise that they have two incompetent nincompoops at the head of the world’s largest economy, and they are voting with their dollars and with their trades to protect themselves against the mad inflationists. Many of them are probably well-intentioned Milton Friedmanite Republicans, that strange combination of half-Socialism/half-Capitalism that mesmerizes itself into thinking it is pragmatic Capitalism, with some “safeguards”. But the current mess shows that there are no safeguards against the ultimate collapse inherent in Socialism, save to invest in inflation hedges (why do they grow so tall?). And even that is a tricky business, because when the money value is at the whim of a board of inflationists (the Central Banks, and chiefly the US FED) it becomes very hard to judge the value of fiat currency, or the velocity of inflation. Backing the money with an asset like a metal, or even a basket of commodities, at least gives a yardstick of measurement, rather than whatever whimsical thought may be passing through Bernanke or Trichet or Obama or Geithner’s brain in the next hour.

People across America and the EU should speak out and demand an end to Mercantilism, to State Socialism for Corporations at the expense of Individual Capitalism, and the slave labor regimes it sets up to keep itself in luxury.

When Cardinal Richelieu took office, his official salary was 25,000 livres per annum. When he ended his career, his income stood at 3 million livres a year.  Ah, Mercatilism!

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwww! — Silverwolf

 Economic consequences of independence

Am fost surprins să constat cât de unilateral văd lucrurile majoritatea cetăţenilor care în primăvară urmează să se prezinte la urna de vot. Şi mă refer nu doar la cei mai puţin cultivaţi dintre ei, ci şi la multe persoane instruite. Nu o dată am remarcat priviri surprinse, dacă nu chiar înjurături, când încercam să explic de ce nu voi vota, de exemplu, cu nişte tinerei pe care toată lumea progresistă şi evoluată îi adoră şi care sunt consideraţi de neînlocuit, unicii care vor scoate ţara din marasm.

Sunt impresionante şi înduioşătoare preocupările pentru lucrurile sfinte, pentru soarta patriei şi altele. Dar parcă, totuşi, uneori mi-aş dori şi câte ceva personal de la politicieni, chiar cu riscul de a scandaliza şi a fi învinuit de meschinărie şi mercantilism.

Deci, stând şi cugetând, am ajuns la concluzia că nu există o singură baricadă, pe părţile opuse ale căreia s-ar situa doar două clase antagonice de oameni. În fiuncţie de statutul social, de avere, de interese specifice, de codul genetic etc., fiecare îşi construieşte imaginar o baricadă, postând pe partea ei opusă categoria ostilă, care se împotriveşte cel mai mult intereselor sale.

Personal, când vine vorba de scrutinul electoral, în prima etapă îi postez de cealaltă parte a baricadei pe heterosexuali, mai ales pe cei religioşi. Ulterior, documentându-mă, fac o delimitare întrei ei şi îi includ în categorii distincte: homofobi, indiferenţi şi simpatizanţi. Pe ultimii îi văd alături de mine, pe baricada mea imaginară, ca aliaţi.

Deci, sper că cei care obişnuiau să mă înjure pe motiv că nu le împărtăşesc opţiunile politice şi îmi exprim preferinţa pentru oameni politici consideraţi depăşiţi, demodaţi, care reprezintă trecutul, vor înţelege într-un final că taberele noastre nu au nimic în comun. Părţile antagonice de pe numeroasele baricade sunt diferite şi urmăresc interese, care momentan nu se intersectează.

În ceea ce mă priveşte, voi vota cu politicieni nespectaculoşi, dar pragmatici, care pun individul mai presus de entităţile în numele cărora a fost sacrificat întotdeauna. Pentru că ei îşi asumă curajul să reprezinte minorităţi în care toţi dau cu piciorul. Şi acesta este adevăratul eroism, nu fluturarea cu Biblii, cadelniţe şi steaguri, care nu au puterea să compromită. Dimpotrivă, aduc glorie uşoară, popularitate fără efort. Iar dacă interesele mele de individ umil şi neînsemnat vor coincide cu ale lor, de politicieni mercantili, nu-mi rămâne decât să mă bucur…