 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Anyone,
The above links to a work published by a professor of economics. I try to read the works done by that professor of economics because that professor almost always sticks to the relevant facts when working on, and reporting about, current political economy.
In this case the professor claims one thing but fails to deliver on the claim.
The importance of this link, to me, is to help the reader understand three things.
1. The economic battle is fixed as one side fighting against the other side, it is an exclusive battle, like republicans against democrats, no one else is allowed to fight that battle, and you could ask why?
2. One side is capitalistic or conservative or of "Austrian Economics" dogma and the other side is socialistic or progressive or "Keynesian Economics" dogma.
3. Where one side agrees with the other side those agreements confess the true motives and where one side disagrees with the other side those disagreements confess willful deceptions.
The capitalistic, conservative, Austrian Economics professor claims:
Why Interest Rates Will Rise
Someone wanting to know why interest rates will rise might read the work that claims to answer why interest rates will rise. Someone may be disappointed.
Please note a fact that I am going to communicate to you.
I spent many months, perhaps nearly a year, writing on the official Austrian Economics Forum Web Page. I asked questions, in search if answers, on that forum, and the end result was character assassination, and then banishment, no answers, dodging the questions, and resorting to lies, virtual coercion, and then exclusion or banishment from the forum - for the crime of doing exactly what they ask people to do: politely participate.
The supposed authorities on economics, these Austrians, these conservatives, these capitalists, will not answer the questions that concern interest rates because those answers confess the true motives behind those people.
The true motives behind those people can be summed up with a claim made by one of their "founding fathers" a person named Karl Menger.
...every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.
Over time, a long time, and after much work on my part, even working in my sleep, I figured out, despite an absolute lack of help from "Austrian" economists, their dogma. I figured out their dogma.
I call their dogma: Scarceonomics, derived from Scarce - Economics.
In short their dogma is derived from a pricing scheme whereby a person can work toward the goal of gaining at the expense of others by way of gaining exclusive control of scarce things and then selling those scarce things at the highest price buyers are willing to pay. It is a "something for nothing" scheme, and the idea is to gain at the expense of others, or: to profit - at the expense of others.
The more scarce a thing is, the higher the "profit" that can flow from buyers to capitalists.
In essence, therefore, capitalism is a pricing scheme, and that is about it. Capitalism can be confused with politics, but doing so causes confusion.
In a state of abundance, there can be no capitalism, and therefore, as can be proven by example, capitalists work toward the necessary state of scarcity, failing to do so will result in the complete elimination of capitalism.
Please know this, or if you know that this is not true, please consider exposing the truth.
Capitalists have nothing to do in a state of abundance, there is nothing for them to do, when there is abundance. They say as much. I can find the relevant quotes again, so if you think you can prove me wrong, do your homework first, I did mine.
Capitalists work toward the goal of making things scarce, failing to do so removes the entire relevance of capitalism.
A state of abundance removes capitalist dogma from the human condition; capitalism = scarcity.
That fact leads the knowledgeable (someone knowing that fact) toward the understanding of the function of money interest.
Now, reader, you can know why the "Austrian" economics professor will fail to answer the question:
Why Interest Rates Will Rise
The only reason why interest rates will rise is the reason why any price will rise - it is scarce and the seller jacks up the price because it is scarce.
Someone needs something and the something needed is scarce, and the something needed is priced high, because the need is great, and the needy person will pay the price, as the price is jacked up, jacked up, and jacked up, until the price is jacked up too high, so high, as to be higher than anyone can afford to pay.
The capitalist pricing scheme, according to capitalist dogma, then lowers the price down to an affordable price, something that the buyers can pay, failing to find that highest possible price, again according to capitalist dogma, is a failure to profit from scarcity by that exact failure, measurable in dollars or measurable in whatever the unit of currency is in that place at that time.
What will "the market" bear? The capitalist must ask the targeted "market".
When the thing being priced is money, the price is called "interest", and if you are confused by that, you may know, by now, that the goal is to make you confused. If you are confused you will remain a targeted market, ripe for exploitation, you won't be in a position to look for and find alternatives, you will be power-less by that exact measure of confusion; however you can measure it, such as here and now, if you are confused.
If you are confused, you are less able to defend yourself.
You are excluded from the group of people who gain power by way of interest. Many people pay interest, few people collect interest, which is interesting, to say the least.
Remember:
...every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.
Everyone cannot profit from interest rates on money. That won't work, like any other pyramid scheme, the few gain at the expense of the many.
If money is not scarce: capitalism doesn't work, and that is why "Austrian" economists disparage the work of Keynes, because Keynes competes with capitalists, for the same market share, and Keynsians love to make money abundant.
Keynesian economics professors, don't get me wrong, are as wrong as capitalists, on the subject of money.
Austrians and Keynesians are much like republicans and democrats in the work of perpetuating the business cycle. When it is time to boom, bring in Side A, when it is time to bust, bring in Side B, round and round we go, when it stops, no, it does not stop, and that is the point: perpetuate legal crime. Hell, the victims, the target market, doesn't even have the term in their vocabulary. Ha! Check mate.
Each side fights each other for the same thing, which is the exclusive control, the power, over legal money. Each side demands the same thing:
...every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.
Each side insists upon exclusive control over the supply of money, and each side knows, even if they won't admit it, that the loss of control over the supply of money is the complete loss of their power over their target market.
No exclusive control - no (exclusive) power to raise (or lower) the interest rate.
Who, you may ask, is their target market? Who do they want to exclude from their club?
Capitalists want to exclude Keynesians, visa versa, and both want to exclude the bottom parts of the pyramid scheme.
To answer the question (why interest rates will rise): you have to trust me some, but trust yourself even more, and begin to use your own brain and think about what I am now going to offer to you.
Who has the power to make more money by simply typing more zeros into their digital bank account?
Now look at this:
National Debt Clock
That is a running account of one exclusive money. That is the real time dollar accounting ledger. The dollar is one, and only one, money.
Who has the power to make more dollars by simply typing more digits into the digital dollar bank account?
What would someone do, or what would a group of people do, to gain that power?
If you could gain that power, you could gain enough power to boom the Chinese economy, boom billions of people, or you could bust the American economy, you could have enough power, you and your group could have enough power, to bust the economies of hundreds of millions of Americans.
You could start wars by financing both sides of a new future conflict, if you can gain the power to add, or subtract, dollars from the legal dollar bank account.
Would you be willing to lie, cheat, and steal, to gain that power?
How about torture and mass murder?
How about legal torture and legal mass murder?
How about the extinction of the species for all future generations after you are long gone - talk about "exclusion" of all else?
Do you think that someone else might be willing to lie, cheat, and steal, to gain that much power, if not you?
What happens if the law is written so as to allow competition instead of monopoly as potential producers compete to gain the market share of money consumers, the target market, of legal money?
How many people can legally make dollars (or legally unmake dollars)?
The answer is one.
There is only one license. Only one.
If there were two, then there would be competition.
If there were two, then the force of competition would force the dollar quality higher, and the force of competition would force the price lower.
Are you confused?
Why would you be confused?
Use your imagination.
I can help.
You already know that there are at least two forms of legal money, and therefore my next offering isn't a wild Utopian fantasy, so I offer, for you, a simple example that intends to illustrate a point - to make that which is confusing: less confusing.
A new law is rammed through congress, or signed into law by executive order, and this new law won't be done by the current congress or the current president, and that is why this simple law is so powerful in the work of creating understanding - out of confusion.
The new law creates a legal money competition, so as to force competitors to increase the quality of money (each unit is more powerful), and by way of competition the law intends to allow the force of competition to force the price of money lower.
The new law adds only one more competitor to the one money supplier, on purpose, so as to avoid further confusion - for now.
The one money supply is the one that has the legal license to add or subtract dollar units - at will. That is the dollar supplier. The new law makes it a law to add one more license, one more franchise - to make two instead of one, to make competition lawful, and to make competition no longer against the law.
The new law adds one more money supplier to that one monopoly supplier.
The new law adds the Chinese Yuan (for example here) to the monopoly money supply business in America, and the reasoning, according to the proponents of this new law, the President, Congressmen, Senators, Austrian Economists, Keynesian Economists, News Reporters, and average Joe workers, and average Jane workers, business men, business women, is to force the suppliers of money to increase quality and lower cost - please.
To force higher quality politely, no coercion, no fraud, no pointed sticks, nothing more than good ole' American competition, the desire to be the best.
To force lower prices politely, no coercion, no fraud, no pointed sticks, nothing more than good ole' American competition, the desire to be the best.
Side A against Side B.
Dollar versus Yuan. The winner get's the gold ring.
Does that illustration cause your brain to explode?
Why, when the thinking here is elementary, simple, easier than simple math?
You now have a choice, by law, to be paid, for all debts public or private, with either a dollar wage, or a yuan wage, and if today the dollar is higher quality and the dollar is lower cost, then today you want to be paid with dollars, if tomorrow the yuan is stronger and less expensive, you choose the yuan.
The dollar supplier can no longer add to the dollar supply, at will, without consequence, because the dollar consumers won't choose dollars if the dollar is less powerful, and too expensive, so long as the competitor competes, so long as something better is on the same shelf for the consumers to choose - voluntarily.
If, on the other hand, the dollar supplier and the yuan supplier both form a cabal, joined at the hip, to add and subtract dollars and yuan in concert, to balance their efforts to maintain control over their "turf", and avoid having their "customers" vote with their feet, move to the better place, then an effective monopoly replaces the effective competition. Too bad for the consumers.
1. Monopoly (price can be jacked up while quality can be non-existent)
2. Competition (price must be lower than the competition and quality must be higher than the competition)
The reason why my illustrated law, simpler than simple math, elementary understanding of basic human character required, works to uncover the truth, is due to the fact that China (yuan) is on one side of the planet and America (dollar) is on the other side - there is room for thought between the great distance.
There is no logical reason for people on one side of the planet to prefer money made on the other side of the planet, so the people on both sides would begin to think, begin to work toward understanding the new law, why the new law was proposed, and why the new law was jammed down the throats of congress, or why the new law was signed into law by the executive in charge of all enforced law in the American Nation State: U.S.A. Inc. (LLC).
While employers begin to contemplate paying employees with yuan or dollars, paying suppliers with yuan or dollars, and while suppliers and employees begin contemplating demanding payment with dollars or yuan, sellers and buyers consider which competitor will be their money of choice, today, tomorrow, and next week, gears in brains will turn.
Dictators, and monopolists, can't exist when gears turn in the brains of their target markets, the exploited natives become restless.
People will begin to ask, and people will begin to answer questions.
1. Which money is better?
2. Which money do I want today?
3. Which money is more powerful?
4. Which money is less expensive to me?
If I choose this money, today, will I avoid the transfer of the power I earn to someone else, today, can I avoid having my power drained by the simple act of choosing the better money?
Choice A:
Money that will cost me too much (transfers my power to someone else, and someone who may torture and mass murder with the power taken from me)
Choice B:
Less of a portion of my money choice flowing from me.
Can I avoid working for nothing, can I work for something instead? Can I avoid having all the value of my work flowing to people who use the value of my work in the work of keeping that flow going, and going faster, until such time as I am working for the privilege of making other people very, very, very powerful, while my suffering increases day by miserable day - if I allow this to continue.
What won't be asked is this:
1. Can I get something for nothing by choosing the better money?
That choice is excluded from the list of choices, that choice is only a choice when competition is against the law.
What won't work is this:
...every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.
That does not work when competition is not against the law.
Interest is interesting. Interest is the stuff of monopoly. Interest is the stuff of scarcity. Interest is the stuff of securing the supply and making damn sure that the supply remains scarce, by any means possible, so as to gain the power by which the price can be jacked up to the upper limit, and gain the power by which the quality can be maintained at the bare minimum, because there is no effective competition, by design, and because, therefore, there is no force forcing quality up, and there is no force forcing price down to cost.
The only ones who want higher interest rates are the ones who want their power to make power for doing absolutely nothing.
If, for example, my purpose for money is to have something I can own and to have the thing I own work for me, this thing I own works for me, I don't have to work, once I own this thing, this thing attracts more of itself to itself, like a magnet, then this thing I have grows bigger over time, as if it were reproducing itself, it sits there, and while sitting there it grows bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and the rate at which it grows bigger accelerates as it grows bigger, and when it becomes really really big it gets bigger and bigger faster, like cancer, or like atomic fission reaching critical mass.
Isn't that interesting?
Look here:
Some Homework for you.
I've done my homework, and that is why I was forced out of the "Austrian" economics forum, and that is why, when I paid to attend one of their "conferences" they dodged the questions they asked me to ask. While at that conference I listened to Ron Paul, and he mentioned me, on record.
Ron Paul does not want The FED, for sure, I truly believe that truth, but what he wants, as far as I can tell, is exclusive control over legal money, in the hands of one supplier - despite what his words may suggest.
If I am wrong, and if Ron Paul does get what he says he wants, then the force of competition will increase and it will force the money we can use, all of us, toward higher quality, at lower cost - to us.
If that happens then money won't make money, all by itself, growing bigger and bigger for doing nothing but existing. That can only happen when there is an effective monopoly and then an enforced scarcity of that thing. That can't happen in a state of abundance.
When there is competition there is a polite, or not as polite as one might want, but a non-deceptive, and non-violent, force that forces quality up, and price (cost) down.
When the competition is money, the price goes down to cost (non-profit), or as close to cost as the winner competitor can get, and the cost can get to zero.
The cost get become negative.
The only way that can happen is when money is used to produce more wealth, higher standards of living, more power produced for less power spent, and only when power isn't wasted, burned up, consumed, and especially consumed by massive money pits such as aggressive wars for profit, where those who profit are the very, very, very elite few, and those who pay are those who pay even if they don't know they are paying, and paying, and paying, and paying - for the privilege to suffer more and more.