 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Anyone,
I am going to communicate an optional viewpoint that does not follow the left/right or socialist/capitalist script as it has become known, currently, as a polarizing, perpetuating, internalized, conflict.
Gary North writes:
That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.
To help understand the optional viewpoint I will paint a picture for the reader, and once the reader has this picture in view the reader can look from that place to the ongoing left/right conflict. You can go to a safe place, an objective place, and from that objective, safe, place, you can look back at, and measure the full measure, of the place of man-made conflict. Are you up to it?
Picture a society whereby the supply of money to the honest productive people within the society is abundant, not scarce, abundant.
You may have trouble with that picture. You may have a very hard time conceptualizing such a society. I can help.
In such a society as a society whereby the honest productive people have ready access to money, an abundant supply of money, there is a scale by which that abundance, and that ready access flows from the source of the money to the users of the money, and on that scale there are extreme limits on each end, and any honest productive person exists on that scale, and being on that scale from one end, or the other end, is a fact of being honest, and it is a fact of being productive, and it is therefore a fact of being able to employ money on that scale.
Those who are very, very, very, and most, extremely, dishonest, are on one end of the scale.
Those who are very, very, very, and most, extremely, unproductive, are on one end of the scale.
Those who are very, very, very, and most, extremely, honest, are on the other end of the scale.
Those who are very, very, very, and most, extremely, productive, are on the other end of the scale.
Most Destructive and Dishonest<->destructive and dishonest<-> neither destructive or productive and neither honest or dishonest<->productive and honest<->Most Productive and Honest
That is the scale and that scale is the scale by which the flow of money flows from the producers of money to the users of money readily while at the same time the flow of money does not readily flow from the producers of money to the torturing mass murderers and those who lie, those who steal, and those who rob, rape, torture, and murder, and those who destroy as an occupation.
Most Destructive and Dishonest<->destructive and dishonest<-> neither destructive or productive and neither honest or dishonest<->productive and honest<->Most Productive and Honest
Least access to money, money is most scarce on this end of the same scale above->->->->->->->->->->->->Most access to money, money is abundant on this end of the same scale above
You now have before you an easy to see social network whereby the power to produce (money is purchasing power or it isn't money) flows to those who can produce the most power to produce while, at the same time, the power to destroy does not flow to those who are most capable of abusing the power to produce in the work of destroying everything including the power to produce.
I've painted the picture, you can ignore it, you can fail to see it, you can fail to ask vital questions concerning what it is, and how to make it work best, but it is, and it will always be what it is, even if you refuse to see it.
If you see it, get in it, know it, be it, and accept it, as it exists, and from that point, look back, look back from that point to the social network at work today whereby socialism is set-up against capitalism in it's present form.
From here:
Most Destructive and Dishonest<->destructive and dishonest<-> neither destructive or productive and neither honest or dishonest<->productive and honest<->Most Productive and Honest
Least access to money, money is most scarce on this end of the same scale above->->->->->->->->->->->->Most access to money, money is abundant on this end of the same scale above
From there look back to here:
Honest Productive People>->->->->->->>->->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->Legal Criminals
Those who employ money to make more productive power send the total of their productive work to those who then use that power stolen in the work of destruction to keep the power to do so perpetually
There are two ways to prove to you that the social network working now is the second social network above, and those two methods of proving to you are as follows:
A.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
B.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
Whenever someone claims that socialism is opposite capitalism, think twice, or think as many times as needed to get out of that hell hole. It is a rigged game. Socialism is not even remotely connected to capitalism, unless you define socialism as an opposite of capitalism, and then, as far as you are concerned, that is what socialism is, as socialism, to you, is the opposite of capitalism, to you, and everyone else who is caught up in that rat trap, clap trap, lie, falsehood, self-destructive merry go round, business cycle insanity, bull expletive.
Socialism has a long history, and it was, is, and will be a scientific approach toward the study of society, in the effort to improve society. Like a gun, or a pointed stick, socialism can be employed by honest productive people as well as socialism can be employed by dishonest destructive people any time, any place, right now, or in the next span of time until human beings are no longer living.
Capitalism has a long history, and it was, is, and will be a method of pricing and that is about it, as far as I know. Capitalism can be anything any honest productive person wants it to be, and capitalism can be anything any dishonest destructive person wants it to be, any time, any where, from now on.
The socialism versus capitalism dogmatic, and false, method of enslaving targeted victims by those who invent, produce, and maintain that false method of enslaving targeted victims is exactly that, and it was that, and it will be that, for as long as it works that way, as long as the targeted victims allow it to work that way.
Left versus Right
Socialism versus Capitalism
Communism versus Fascism
Democrats versus Republicans
Organized crime group A versus Organized crime group B
Legal Crime group A versus Legal Crime group B
The labels hide the names of the actual people who invent, produce, and maintain those types of connections, those types of social networks, those types of arrangements that are, without the lies, and are without the false fronts, INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS.
When there are battles going on whereby those who invent, produce, and maintain VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, are being targeted by those who invent, produce, and maintain INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS you have, before you, regime change of a different nature, a different order, and a regime change that cannot be known by the victims if the legal criminals have enough power to make sure that the victims don't know that a defensive battle is even possible; hence the need to invent, produce, and maintain the false battle, where one offensive side fights another offensive side - kill or be killed - race to the bottom, might makes right, etc.
If the victims are fighting a false battle, whereby the victims are fighting each other, they then have little or no power being employed in the work that can cause the end of victimization. The end of victimization is out of sight, out of mind, as minds are filled with this false, man-made, premeditated, schedule of perpetual aggressive wars for profit, internally, and externally.
Do you have that understood?
How many ways can that be shown to you, whereby you can still manage to ignore it?
Will you ever question the lies that you have accepted as fact?
Back to Gary North:
That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.
All of that is nonsense. It is abject acceptance of falsehood driving false solutions. You can know this, easily. You don't have to rely upon the expertise of an Austrian Economist to dig your own way out of the mire.
When purchasing power flows to honest productive people in abundance, instead of the opposite, whereby purchasing power flows readily, quickly, rapidly, into the hands of the most destructive among us, what happens?
What happens if the following measures of the current falsified conflict is reversed?
A.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
B.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
What happens if those measures of the current falsified conflict are reversed?
It may or may not be capitalism.
It may or may not be socialism.
It will be a social network that measurably allows, voluntarily, the flow of power flowing to the people who are most able to use that power in the work of making more power.
What happens when power is abundant?
Why will the label capitalism fit that which will be, in the absence of the falsified conflict, or why will socialism fit?
Capitalism is just, and only, a method of pricing, and it is a method of pricing that is employed by the person using that method to move power to them from someone else, and that is it, and it can be capitalism whenever it works for whomever it works and so what, big deal, it is not something to die for, it is not something to torture people to keep, it isn't worth anything more than any other pricing method at any time, in any place, when there is abundance, and when the buyers have a competitive option.
Capitalism is a pricing method. If it is more to you, if it is something else, and you define what it is, to you, and to whomever you share that exclusive definition, whereby your group define capitalism that way, so what, big deal, pat yourselves on the back, you have a neat pricing method, good enough for you, and whatever else you add to that pricing method, and by whatever definition you share with anyone concerning your versions of capitalism.
Is capitalism the thing you use to excuse legal torture and legal mass murder? Is your pricing method worth that much to you? What is capitalism to you?
This:
Honest Productive People>->->->->->->>->->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->Legal Criminals
Those who employ money to make more productive power send the total of their productive work to those who then use that power stolen in the work of destruction to keep the power to do so perpetually
If that is the bare bones, no false advertizing, no false fronts, no hidden agendas, no secret deals, no dirty compromises, out in the open, true, accurate, real, factual thing you know to be as capitalism, then capitalism isn't just a pricing method, to you.
If that is capitalism, to you, and your group, then capitalism isn't this:
Most Destructive and Dishonest<->destructive and dishonest<-> neither destructive or productive and neither honest or dishonest<->productive and honest<->Most Productive and Honest
Least access to money, money is most scarce on this end of the same scale above->->->->->->->->->->->->Most access to money, money is abundant on this end of the same scale above
When the power to purchase moves more readily to those who employ power, in the necessary work required to produce more power, the end result will be an abundance of power sooner than any other flow of power, such as when the flow of power flows rapidly from those who create power to those who steal it and use it to destroy any competition anywhere.
When the power to purchase moves more readily to those who employ power in the necessary work required to move power to dishonest people who destroy things, you have this:
A.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
B.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
Call that socialism if it makes you feel better about it. It is still it. Call that capitalism, if it makes you feel better about it. It is still it. It is still doing what it does best.
Back to Gary North:
That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.
The Gold Bugs, and the Austrian Economists, call them conservatives, or call them republicans, or call them friends of Liberty, or constitutionalists, or whatever label works for you, but don't call them late for dinner.
They want purchasing power to be scarce. That is their tune. So long as purchasing power is scarce, so long will some people (those who know how to gain control over scarce things) be more powerful than those who don't. That is their tune.
It is based upon the idea that value, the full and only measure of value, is measured on a scale of scarcity. Like this:
Most scarce, very scarce, pretty scarce, kinda scarce, not scarce or abundant, kinda abundant, pretty abundant, very abundant, most abundant
Most valuable, very valuable, kinda valuable, not as valuable, even less valuable, nearly absent any value, hardly worth anything, worth nothing
That is a very flawed economic theory, as it ignores, on purpose, the value of generosity, and it ignores, by willful ignorance, or just plain stupidity, the value of power.
If power is abundant it is more powerful, not less, it is more valuable, not less, depending upon who does the measuring.
If power is scarce it is only more powerful for those who have the power to get more power than anyone else.
See?
So, that is the measure of error in that viewpoint, as anyone with a brain can see, assuming, of course, that the man hears more than just what he what's to hear.
I've spilled the beans. I've blown the whistle. What can the capitalists do, once they know the truth about their pricing methods? They are trained to accept only one option, which is to move closer to socialism, once they have been shown the limitations of the capitalist pricing method.
That is the insanity of the left/right falsehood. That is the brilliancy, or genius, of the left/right falsehood. Who does the measuring?
Are you an insane victim.
Are you a member of the legal crime syndicate of economic and political geniuses pretending to be making the same mistakes over and over again?
How do you earn your living?
Who pays the bills you alone create?
If the use of your brilliant, genius, left/right falsehood fills your bank account, you may find out soon, that you are just another one of the insane victims, and you have fair warning, from more than just another conscientious objector, you even have warnings offered to you from above, and I don't mean Gold.
Back to Gary North:
That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.
I return to that because that says so much.
What happens when power flows readily, abundantly, to those who employ power best at the work of making more power? They get a little and they produce so much more, and compare that to sending power to those who get a lot and they use what the get to destroy everything in sight.
That is a vital question, and therefore an accurate answer is required, a must have, and failing to have the accurate answer can be worse than failing to ask the question, since the wrong answer can invent, and produce, a wrong path, a path heading further away from the right path, while the person who has not yet asked the question may yet ask it, and may yet gain the accurate answer. and may then embark on the better path sooner. How much on the wrong path will pass before the traveler realizes what is found at the end of that wrong path?
What happens when power flows readily, abundantly, to those who employ power best at the work of making more power?
Jobs, employment, opportunity, and an abundant supply of new, productive, things to be done, can be what happens when power flows readily, abundantly, to those who employ power best at the work of making more power.
What happens when there are many, many, many more job opportunities than there are people who are ready, willing, and able to fill those job opportunities?
The shoe goes on to the other foot.
A worker becomes the employer.
Like this:
Joe is a person needing help to complete a large work load, failing to gain the help needed will be total failure since another competitor does not fail in this work of finding, hiring, and paying workers to work.
Jack is a temporarily unemployed person deciding which job to take, among an abundant supply of jobs, not wanting to be too generous, not wanting to give up too much for too little. Generous but not to a fault, not stupidly generous, not generous to a point of weakness. One can't be generous without anything to give.
Joe interviews Jack:
Joe:
"Jack, sit down, please, I'm offering you less than the minimum wage required by law, because I can."
Jack:
"Stuff it."
Back to Gary North:
That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.
If the Gold Bugs get to keep a monetary system that manages to make purchasing power scarce to everyone except those who are best able to deceive targeted victims, or threaten targeted victims, or injure targeted victims, or torture targeted victims, or mass murder targeted victims, then power will remain scarce, on purpose, because power can't be allowed to reach a level that is even remotely close to abundance, because abundant power will find it's way into the hands of honest productive people, and that will result in honest productive people doing what they do best, which is production, which will be powerful, which will move the production of power more toward abundance, including the production of an abundant supply of job opportunities.
Joe interviews Jack:
Joe:
"Jack, sit down, please, I'm offering you less than the minimum wage required by law, because I can."
Jack:
"Stuff it."
Back to Gary North:
[Note: the phrase "pocket the difference" is the very heart of the endless debates among all schools of economic opinion. Why? Because nobody keeps the money in his pocket for long. He does something with it. So, to understand economics, follow the money: into pockets and out of pockets.]
Please don't get the wrong idea. I'm not blowing the whistle on Gary North. I think that Gary North knows the facts as good as anyone I've read living today. Gold may dominate a free market as the highest quality legal currency taking most of the market share because it is higher in quality and lower in cost than all competitors combined.
That can be, and I'm not here to argue. How is that fact established, if it will be a fact?
Is it a fact that gold is the best money?
I don't know. I think not. I think that electricity is a much better legal currency. The trouble with electricity being money, not currency, is that electricity is a "use it or lose it" form of legal currency. Storing electricity is yet again another market. Electricity is a very productive form of legal currency. Electricity is a very high quality legal currency, because it is exactly what it is, and it is therefore a very exact standard of purchasing power.
One watt is exactly one watt, no more, no less, ever.
That is what I think, not what Gary North thinks. I may be alone in my thoughts. You can be the judge.
You are.
Back to Gary North:
Therefore, Marx concluded, the way to get rich is to set up a business in India and China, where there are enormous pools of labor to be exploited. Oops, sorry; that's not what Marx taught. He said that the way to get rich was to imitate his partner, Frederick Engels, who ran a factory in Manchester. Well, he did not actually admit that his partner was a capitalist exploiter, but he knew how the man made enough money to put him on the dole for 30 years. So, Marx argued, the way to get rich is to set up a business in a growing economy – a capitalist economy – where there are fewer laborers than in Asia, and who live far better than Asians did in 1850. Exploit richer workers – that's the ticket to wealth!
I want to explore the optional viewpoint much more than I have the time to do so, at this time, so I have to cut this short. The above quote reminds me of a lesson learned. The lesson I learned had to do with the two default viewpoints combined into the one conflict viewpoint, and how, historically, that played out.
Left versus Right = One thing (A man-made, self destructive, perpetuating, conflict)
In the Communist Manifesto there are quotes that may be attributed to Marx or Engels. Confusing the two may be a bad idea. In those quotes the message is clearly marking the differences between the false conflict and the options.
A. The one thing (left versus right = one coin with two heads)
B. Not A (Options)
The false conflict was said to be, specifically, COMMUNISM versus Capitalism, and in The Communist Manifesto the option viewpoint was spelled out as Socialism, and even that was specified as the Socialism spoken of by specific proponents of Socialism.
Here:
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
PREFACE TO 1888 ENGLISH EDITION
Down here:
Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a _socialist_ manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the "educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.
Note the use of the following term:
social quacks
The Enemies of Communism, therefore, are known.
Owenites
Fourierists
Those were the enemies of the Communism versus Capitalism battle.
Those were the optional viewpoints. Those where the ones opting out of the false paradigm.
I have learned a lesson about those options.
From those options, in America, the following options were invented:
1.
http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf
That was explained further, in historical context, by the following:
Owen, Fourier, St. Simon, and more, have worthily sought to solve the problem of a harmonious human society; and although they have all tailed to discover the true methods of reform, they have done, in the effort to do so, other and most valuable work. They have laid bare the vices of the old règime with a terrific fidelity. They have, like Carlyle, disgusted mankind with their own portraiture. At the same time they have sketched with a potent hand an enchanting picture of the “golden age of the future,” which contrasts in all men’s minds forcibly, at this day, with the antagonism, the wasteful expenditure of means, the ignorance, and crime, and sickness, and squalor, and filth, and wretchedness, and the broad and painful but ludicrous diversities of poverty and wealth, and the mercenary degradation of all classes, which disgrace the existing state of our social organization. Fourier has done even far more than this. His masterly analysis of the human passions is an invaluable contribution to man’s knowledge of himself. His daring but shadowy outline of a science of universal analogy, which would be entitled, if once put fairly upon the firm basis of a known science, to the denomination of “The Science of Sciences,” is eminently worthy of estimation, if regarded as merely suggestive, and stimulating to more sedate and systematic investigations in the same direction, and equally dangerous if accepted for what it claims to be an ascertained basis from which to reason in practical science.
http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm
The lesson is such that other people know the same lesson, in other words:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/pilgers-law-if-its-been-officially-denied-then-itrsquos-probably-true-959206.html
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it’s probably true'
The Communist Manifesto officially denies Socialism and not ambiguously, there is a specific reference to a pre-corruption Socialism, or Socialism before it was corrupted by the Legal Criminals in much the same way as the Nationalists corrupted the Federalism, and in much the same was as Rick Perry is corrupting the Tea Party, and in much the same way as, perhaps, Newt Gingrich corrupts The Republican Party.
Owenites in England, Fourierists in France
Those options instead of the two headed coin were imported, improved, and those types of options became such things as Equitable Commerce.
There are other examples:
2.
http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm
Mutual Banking (look up The Parasite City please)
And here:
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/40
A New System of Paper Currency
Listen up.
Those are American versions of options that are outside of the Left/Right conflict, so, what does the "Right" have to say about those American born options, and keep in mind Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it’s probably true'
You have to go to the Right side's official mouthpiece, and you probably don't even know who that is, so I can offer to you a very competitive competitor for the official, no bones, free market, mouth piece, the literal horses mouth, for the established free market right side of the two headed coin.
Here:
http://mises.org/books/egalitarianism.pdf
Murray Rothbard
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature
13
THE SPOONER–TUCKER
DOCTRINE: AN
ECONOMIST’S VIEW
Remember a few things here please, before I begin quoting:
1. The mouth piece of the free market right does not touch Equitable Commerce with a 10 foot pole, as far as the Free Market Right (tm) is concerned the author of Equitable Commerce is persona non grata.
2. The closest I have ever found of any spokesperson of the Free Market Right (tm) challenging Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren are the quotes I am going to quote now.
3. Spooner was a spokes person contemporary to, or at the same time as, Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews, all of which came after Owen and Fourier, all of which are contemporaries with Marx and Engels, more or less, and then following Josiah Warren are the works of Benjamin Tucker, with his publications of Liberty, for example, the time line is thereby reported, and it is a significant time in human history.
Murray Rothbard had to skip over Josiah Warren, as if Equitable Commerce didn't exist, and then Rothbard sets about to discredit Spooner and Tucker. Spooner wrote A New System of Paper Currency, which you can read yourself. Tucker helped publish a magazine called Liberty.
Here are the quotes from Rothbard as he discredits his competition:
Actually, in contrast to collectivist anarchists and to many other types of radicals, Spooner and Tucker tried to use economics rather than scorn it as excessively rational. Some of their fallacies (for example, the “law of cost,” the labor theory of value) were embedded in much of classical economics; and it was their adoption of the labor theory of value that convinced them that rent, interest, and profit were payments exploitatively extracted from the worker. In contrast to the Marxists, however, Spooner and Tucker, understanding many of the virtues of the free market, did not wish to abolish that noble institution; instead, they believed that full freedom would lead, by the workings of economic law, to the peaceful disappearance of these three categories of income. The mechanism for this peaceful abolition Spooner and Tucker found—and here they unfortunately ignored the teachings of classical economics and substituted instead their own fallacies—in the sphere of money.
That is bait and switch, combined with a Man of Straw product. There is no argument possible as to the cost principle which is Josiah Warren's observation reported in Equitable Commerce. Rothbard baits with an inaccurate reference to the cost principle by twisting it and replacing it with his own construction of "law of cost" and then his own Man of Straw in "The Labor Theory of Value (tm)".
So, politically, destructive politics, or resort to deceit, is a play here in measurable ways by Rothbard as he resorts to deceit as a means of destroying competition, and it is specifically competition in money markets that is targeted by Rothbard.
A.
Do not mention that which must not be acknowledged, which is the same thing happening right now as the Legal Criminals do not mention Ron Paul. Murray Rothbard, and all the right side dogmatists do not mention Josiah Warren and Equitable Commerce, at all. To mention Josiah Warren is to give support to monetary competition, a no win situation for the monopolists who pay lip service to competition.
B.
Corrupt the message that does manage to become currently known by a significant number of people, despite refusal to even mention that which must not be acknowledged. In other words: if the competitive message does get out, despite all effort to keep the competitive message censored, the next best thing is to alter, corrupt, and spin the message that does get out, and at the same time avoid mentioning the actual message as much as possible.
C.
Attack the corrupted message, once the corrupted Man of Straw is in place, and misdirect all attention away from the actual message. A Man of Straw is constructed with an obvious flaw, and then the constructor of the Man of Straw has power over that weak opponent, while the actual opponent is thereby hidden. The actual opponent will be left in an indefensible position if The Man of Straw gains currency, or, in other words, if the Man of Straw is believed to be a true representation of the censored, defeated, competitive message. See the Federalist versus Anti-Federalist conflict for a prime, text book, example of the tactic, as Nationalists hid behind a false front of Federalism, and they even managed to implant the name Anti-Federalist on their competitors who were, in all fact, the true Federalists of the day. That is textbook political deception.
More from Murray Rothbard:
The two basic interrelated fallacies of Spoonerite theory (and the theory of all schools of writers who have unkindly been labelled by economists as “money-cranks”) are a failure to understand the nature of money and the nature of interest. 4 (footnote)
First off: you can read Spooner's actual work, if you care to, and you can know that it is sound, and his work is far closer to capitalism, it is capitalism in fact, it employes the same pricing method, based upon scarcity, and therefore the whole attack on Spooner is ludicrous, laughable, or even stupid - certainly ignorant. Secondly: the actual alternative, the cost principle, and the principle of individuality, combined as a basis for Equitable Commerce, a competitor, the actual target of Rothbard's false political spin, the same thing that inspired Tucker, is again misrepresented by Rothbard, it is entirely side stepped, with the reference to "monetary-cranks".
Call them names, when facts weaken your offering compared to the competition. Does that sound at all familiar?
Thirdly: notice the tactic of claiming to blame the use of derogatory laguage, and inflammatory verbiage, on other people. Rothbard claims that it is unfair to call his Straw-Man "monetary-cranks", while he does it.
Forth: the concept of interest is not "understood" in any sense of the word, and all the ambiguity of "interest", according to Rothbard, is the full measure of it. The interest he defines is ambiguity, it is ambiguity, and the idea is to keep "interest" a trade secret, something known only by a few, and something not knowable by the many, it is, as a term: fine print, it is too complicated on purpose.
Interest is simple.
Interest is nothing but the price on money. If competition is legal, then the price is driven down, and that is simple. It is simple to know why some people work to make money scarce. Once money is made scarce, the price on money can reach for the highest known limit ever in the history of human existence. That is simple stuff. It is interesting to know that capitalists want money to be scarce, on purpose, so as to make money prices go higher, and higher, and higher, in inverse proportion to money scarcity. If no one but a few have it, everyone else will pay anything to get it. Isn't that interesting?
Here is Rothbards dodge:
4 (footnote)
For the sake of simplicity, we will here continue the practice of the classical economists of lumping “interest” and “profits” together. Actually, the rate of profit on the market tends, in the long-run, to equal the rate of interest. Short-run profit (and losses) would continue to exist on the market even if Spooner had his way and the rate of interest (and of long-run profit) fell to zero. The true nature of the distinction between interest and profit was not discovered until the work of Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1921).
I've read some of the work done by various people in the effort to understand how modern political economy works, and there are many various angles of view, and in all but a very few cases there is a connection between the honest productive people and the legal criminals and that connection is denominated in the enforced legal monopoly currencies that are enforced by deceit, by threats of violence, and by acts of terrible, and horrible, violence upon the innocent victims. A measure of that "modern political economy" is that version offered by Rothbard, and it is not the measure of a free market economy, unless by defining "free" the word means freedom from moral conscience. What is being done by Murray Rothbard, with this reference to what he means by the word "interest" is another case of bait and switch, whereby the "interest" he claims is a false claim, he claims that his "interest" is "free market" interest, when it is demonstrably not, he is eluding to "interest" as it is measured under the influence of deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence upon the innocent, as the honest productive people are connected to the legal criminals by way of a legal monopoly monopoly extortion racket.
Bait:
Monetary interest functioning accurately in a social network that manages to avoid resort to deceit, threats of violence, and injury by aggressive violent attack, or, free market interest, as in: free from crime.
Switch:
See here, this is what I mean when I say "interest", see how it works the way I say it works, while I am pointing to interest that is working in a social network whereby purchasing power is made scarce by those few who have control over the one and only legal supply, and their exclusive control over the supply of purchasing power is by resort to deceit, mainly, but also by resort the threats of violence, which can also be a form of deceit, and by way of actual aggressive, premeditated, willful, violence upon the innocent targeted victims.
Back to Murray Rothbard is his effort to demonize the competitive options that are outside of the Left/Right false front:
Money-crankism assumes (1) that more and ever more money is needed on the market; (2) that the lower the interest rate the better; and (3) that the interest rate is determined by the quantity of money, the former being inversely proportional to the latter. Given this set of totally fallacious assumptions, the prescription follows: keep increasing the quantity of money and lowering the rate of interest (or profits).
Murray Rothbard closely associates the names of Spooner and Tucker (presumably Benjamin Tucker of the Liberty publication) with "monetary crankism", without actual reference to their works, and then Murray Rothbard builds the Man of Straw, again a close association falsely made, a guilt by close association, and a false association between the names of Spooner and Tucker with "monetary crankism" and the definition of that Man of Straw made up by Murray Rothbard himself, and a definition that has nothing to do with the targets of Murray Rothbards lies.
Look into the work of Spooner and note how his actual proposal ties the issue of money with existing land titles. That is as plain to see as the nose on your face, if you care to look. If, on the other hand, the idea is to ignore actual competition, so as not to lend the competition any support, any notice, and the idea follows through with a willful plan to misrepresent the competition, by constructing false representations of the competition, then anything can be said about the competition, then the false misrepresentation, on schedule, is thrown like mud onto the competition, and likely as not some of the mud sticks.
Note the similarities in nomenclature between the right leaning half of the diametric perpetuating conflict and the left leaning half of the same coin?
Engels (or Marx after his corruption):
social quacks
Rothbard (or any mouth piece of that half of that ongoing road to hell):
monetary-cranks
Don't forget Pilger's Law:
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it’s probably true'
The truth is easy to see, once you can get past the left/right self destruction dogma. If competition is not destroyed by resort to deceit, threats of violence, and acts of aggressive, criminal, violence upon the innocent, then money will be forced to higher and higher quality, and at the same time, money will be forced to ever lower, and lower, and lower costs.
What would be the result of such a force acting upon the production of money for a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade, a century, a millennium, or an eon?
Money is power or it isn't money.
Power moves toward abundance.
What happens when power moves toward abundance?
The cost goes down.
What is interest?
Interest is the cost of money.
In whose best interest is it to make damn sure that power never reaches anything even close to abundance?
Back to Murray Rothbard:
Money-crankism assumes (1) that more and ever more money is needed on the market; (2) that the lower the interest rate the better; and (3) that the interest rate is determined by the quantity of money, the former being inversely proportional to the latter. Given this set of totally fallacious assumptions, the prescription follows: keep increasing the quantity of money and lowering the rate of interest (or profits).
That has nothing to do with Spooner, or Tucker, or Equitable Commerce invented by Josiah Warren. That is a Man of Straw. That is a construction of Murray Rothbard, and it is plausibly deniable, or half true, or as ambiguous as needed, it is constructively interpretable, and it means only that which someone wants it to mean at any given time, and it can mean the exact opposite the next second.
Spooner offered an expedient method of connecting economic actors, people, in a way that offers accountability. It is an example of competition in money markets. The effect of allowing competition in money markets is measurable as the force of competition forces the quality of the product produced up, or the service produced, upward, while the cost of the same production lowers, over time.
Who has a competitive argument, and what would be the point of arguing?
End competition?
That ends my part in exposing the left side, and the right side, as two sides of the same anti-competition argument; an argument that is constructed to reach the goal of argument, or conflict, or to reach the goal of ensuring that argument, and conflict, work to limit, govern, and reduce power down, and down, and down, so as to make sure that power remains scarce, so that there isn't enough power available for all, certainly not enough power to afford the victims the power needed to avoid victimization.
Back the Gary North:
Before doing so, please know, I am almost never challenged, and you may guess why, since as you can see, I've done my homework.
What does that say, world wide, about your authorities? Know. Know that I've been writing my viewpoint for decades, and I reach a world wide audience, and I can count those who challenge my viewpoint on one hand, and that is a measure of competition. Where are your authorities on political economy, if they are not in your own brain?
Back to Gary North:
Defenders of the free market, then as now, have argued that workers got richer, 1820-1850, because there was more capital investment per worker. Capitalists competed against each other to buy the services of workers. Real wages were going up in 1850 – higher than at any time in man's history.
Please note that time frame. That time frame was the age of Spooner, Greene, Anderson, and Warren, an age of almost unrestricted competition in America, a hey day, a time after Jackson killed the monopoly bank of the day, a competition won even if it was won by another monopolist, the age was known by the Wildcat Banks.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Banking_Era#1837.E2.80.931862:_.22Free_Banking.22_Era
1837–1862: "Free Banking" Era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking
non-federally regulated state banking between 1816 and 1863
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson
After a titanic struggle, Jackson succeeded in destroying the Bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833.
What was the polarizing event that ended competition soon after that era of lesser enforcement of monopoly power? Learn from history, or pay the cost.
Back to Gary North:
What was wrong with Marx's theory? First, there was not much surplus labor to exploit. Employers kept bidding up the price (wages) of any visible exploited labor in their quest for profit. (Greedy bastards!) Second, labor was not the only productive asset to provide economic value, contrary to the labor theory of value. In this fundamental sense, the labor theory of value was wrong, and Marx was the last famous economist to defend it. By the time he died, the labor theory of value had been dead for a decade. It was finally interred in the grave with Marx. It was about time. As Martha said of her brother Lazaurus' corpse, "It stinketh." Unlike Lazarus, there has been no resurrection of the labor theory of value. But the Keynesians have tried. How they have tried!
Ask a vital question, and do not settle for anything less than an accurate answer.
Who made up this "labor theory of value"?
Gary North appears to suggest, but I don't here him saying so, that Marx either made that theory up, or Marx supported it.
What is this "labor theory of value"?
I don't know. But I have a quote by Eric Fromm, attributed to Marx, and it is how I will introduce my comments on this mysterious thing called "The Labor Theory of Value".
http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Human-Destructiveness-Erich-Fromm/dp/080501604X
For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. Fromm, 1961, 1968)
Now, from whose viewpoint can a theory be accurately explained?
A.
The critics of that viewpoint
B.
Those who have that viewpoint
Who ever dreamed up a "Labor Theory of Value" (tm)?
I submit, absent any information that proves otherwise (so far), that the opponents of that viewpoint are the ones who invented it, and when you ask them what it is, they will tell you that it is stupid, and they have created all the evidence needed to prove their claims.
See how that works?
I have observations to report to you, and you can measure these observations yourself.
1.
Sticking my hand in a fire will cause my hand to burn, and my hand will be injured in proportion to the time that my hand is held in the fire.
2.
Looking directly at the sun, will cause my eyes to be injured, and my injuries to my eyes will be proportional to the length of time that my eyes are focused directly at the sun.
You can argue with me over my use of English.
You can claim that those observations are theories.
You can even make up a false version of my claims above, and you can claim that your false versions are my versions, and you can even claim that my reports of the facts are my theories, and your versions of my theories can be constructed by you to be stupid theories, as you tear apart the stupid theories that you constructed to misrepresent what I have just reported.
1.
Sticking my hand in a fire caused my hand to burn, and my hand will be injured in proportion to the time that my hand is held in the fire.
2.
Looking directly at the sun, will cause my eyes to be injured, and my injuries to my eyes will be proportional to the length of time that my eyes are focused directly at the sun.
3.
Productive human labor is valuable in proportion to the value of the products produced by productive human labor.
Now I have added a further observation, as a report to you, from me, and no one else but me. I can add additional observations concerning that accurate report of measurable reality.
You can call it theory.
What would be the point of you calling those observations by any other wording, at all? Why are your versions of my words better than my versions of my wording? Can you claim to know more about my measures of reality than I do?
I don't know why Gary North is reporting things about Marx, or The Labor Theory of Value, and I've asked Gary North questions, by way of e-mail, and he is not reachable, measurable by the lack of response to my vital questions.
I still read Gary North, because he is, so far, the most accurate reporter of the right wing perspective of that two sided man-made conflict. I can know better that which I prefer to avoid, so as to avoid it better, and it is not easy to avoid, the two sided man-made conflict is, in one word: ubiquitous.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ubiquitous
existing or being everywhere, especially at the same time; omnipresent: ubiquitous fog; ubiquitous little ants.
Back to Gary North, and this time I'm going to read through the whole article, pick out one more thing, and then I have yet to edit this monster.
Audit the FED.
Why waste power at all. Why not bypass them entirely, why not cut free from that extortion racket entirely? Waste no more time, energy, power, thought, labor, politics, or economy on that at all, please.
Invent, produce, and maintain competitive legal money and all those legal criminals will eat each other for lack of ready victims.
So, you may ask, what is an example of competitive legal money?
1. Gold
2. Silver
3. Oil
4. Electricity
5. Stamp Script
6. Labor Notes
7. Land title notes
8. Food
9. Water
10. Hydrogen and Oxygen, separated or together
Which, you may ask, is better?
Keep asking.
It is a vital question.
The answer will be unmistakable. It will corner the market, and if it is challenged by something better, later, it will no longer corner the market. Competition will force the quality higher.
Competition will force the cost lower.
The missing element is THE FORCE OF COMPETITION
Monopoly power must use all the power necessary in the work of eliminating competition.
Failing to eliminate competition means, by definition, that there will be competition.
What does competition do?
Competition forces the quality up.
Competition forces the cost down.
What does monopoly do?
Is that a vital question?
What is the accurate answer?
Will a false answer be good enough?
Monopoly forces quality down.
Monopoly forces cost up.
Is this a theory?
Are you on crack?