This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Marxism Never Sleeps

Tyler Durden's picture




 

And another chart that needs additional exposure...

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:26 | 1463537 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Marxist soldiers, bitchez!

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:07 | 1463679 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Hardly the full impact graph.

Take a look at the excludees. SNAP, Vets...transfer payments...hmmmmmm.....

And while you are at it, remember this:

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/66th-anniversary-of-trinity-and-thoughts/

ORI

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:40 | 1463769 Careless Whisper
Careless Whisper's picture

Yeah, but take a look at the "includes", like Social Security recipients. They paid for those benefits. Prolly paid more than what they're getting in return. Social Security currently takes in more annually than it pays out. But whatever, the gov borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends. That's not good. So why not just slash everything, across the board? Everything means everything, and just deal with it because otherwise we will have bigger problems. Right?

 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:52 | 1463816 cpu
cpu's picture

1) You don't pay for your SS benefits.  Your money goes to pay other people's

benefits.  You have no money at the SS administration with your name on it.

2) There is no SS trust fund.  It has ALWAYS been a transfer program from

workers to non-workers.

3) SS doen NOT take in more that it pays out.  In 2009 it started cashing IOUs

to pay benefits.

cpu

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:59 | 1463834 Careless Whisper
Careless Whisper's picture

It has ALWAYS been a transfer program from workers to non-workers.

Don't you mean a transfer program from workers to retired workers who just got done paying a lifetime of transfer payments for others?

 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:02 | 1463846 Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:18 | 1463889 Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson's picture

Fleming vs. Nestor

Helvering vs. Davis

'N you can look it up.

 

CW

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 20:10 | 1464988 Miss anthrope
Miss anthrope's picture

+applause thank you                    a ponzi scheme=social security

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:20 | 1463895 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

It is a subtlety he missed.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 16:52 | 1464496 malek
malek's picture

Just like the subtlety that gov't workers don't pay in. Let's split some more hairs!

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:01 | 1464009 Libertarian777
Libertarian777's picture

not quite.

SS use to be an 'insurance', small premiums everyone paid, and only got benefits if you exceeded average life expectancy (65 when SS started).

SS had a sufficiently large base that politicians over the past 10 years could promise the SAME benefits to EVERYONE who is now on average living beyond 65), so instead of whatever small % living beyond expected average age, and claiming SS, EVERYONE claims SS now.

So beneficiaries increased but the insurance premiums everyone paid remain constant. At no time in the last 30 years has anyone paid in enough to cover their benefit.

Even now, I pay a lot less than my SS statement says I can claim. I'm not betting on that benefit being worth anything in real terms when I retire. SS is an income tax, plain and simple, the proceeds are NOT invested in anything (government debt is NOT an 'investment' to me, anymore than giving money to a homeless person is an investment).

So much like Bernie Madoff, investors who got paid their '10% annual returns' and cashed out, are upset that the ponzi was discovered and the other investors are asking for a clawback.

SS recipients are in the same ponzi scheme. Unfortunately the SS 'asset' base was so large, the ponzi scheme could go on for a while, until 2009, when it hit that inflection point.Remember if Bernie Madoff could hide a $30-60 bn ponzi for 30 years, how long could you hide a $900bn ponzi?

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:42 | 1464112 cpu
cpu's picture

+1

You don't even have to retire.  I work with 2 guys who have reached full

retirement age and are drawing a full SS check while continuing to work.

cpu

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:38 | 1463946 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Then why do they keep sending me letters about my "account" with those 4-digit monthly number projections?

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:48 | 1463968 Manthong
Manthong's picture

I believe that for economy reasons they stopped sending the annual statements.

Or was is some other reason?

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:59 | 1464005 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Nope, the SSA sent me mine last year...I remember doing the calculations to see exactly where it landed on the insurance to Ponzi spectrum (my contributions versus the likely amount they'd have to pay out if I live to a ripe old age). IIRC, I was into the pockets of future children for about $100k depending on when I decide to quit working.

 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:43 | 1464120 cpu
cpu's picture

The fine print on that statement says that Congress can change this at any time.

cpu

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 20:19 | 1465005 ATM
ATM's picture

And the supreme court has ruled that govt benefit payments are not a contract but a rovacable promise.

Even at that I know that SSI payment will be made o me and you. The problem is that the value of the payments is going to be a near if not zero.

The govt controls two variables in the equation. The actual payments and the value of the payments because they control the value of our currency. It's political suicide to reduce the payments but they can blame the greedy speculators, the rich, the hedge funds or anyone else when the dollar collapses. That's what always happens.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 20:59 | 1465077 Bobbyrib
Bobbyrib's picture

Basically it is just another tax.

Mon, 07/18/2011 - 01:38 | 1465520 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

no, basically it's a scam that pretends to provide a benefit or entitlement in later years that you don't actually have.

A tax we expect to pay and be spent for our benefit probably during the coming year...

It is a scam, outright.

 

Mon, 07/18/2011 - 14:25 | 1467249 rufus13
rufus13's picture

Careless Whisperer: SSI is a TAX. No individual payer of SSI "withholding" develops a property interest or a specific obligation against the US Gov't or the Social Security Administration. There is no "trust fund", there is only non-marketable IOU's which will/may be paid by selling real US Treasury Obligations to the market (or to the FRB, as much of the sales are now) to generate current funds to send out checks to the little people. 

"SSI takes in more than it pays out": Sorry, wrong, old data. Getting worse demographically and as folks can't find work they retire ASAP as rules allow or get themselves "disabled" to qualify for early-retirement. Humiliation being better to most folks than trying harder or working for less than their last job. 

 

What are the actual obligations of the US Gov? Look at the Constitution:

We have to pay legitimate debt already incurred, or at least the interest on that debt. We need to pay the current earned-pay of Federal employees (but they can be laid off or let go to prevent future pay), statutory retirement obligations of Federal employees and the nation needs defending, but not at the current level of funding. There is NO OBLIGATION to pay "social welfare benefits" or "Social Security benefits".  Of course, social unrest begins when checks don't arrive, so inflation will reduce actual value of SSI benefits to half over a decade, also reducing the US Debt by half over the same decade, all the while Gov't "official statistics" will be manipulated and  re-adjusted for the advantage of the ruling classes who get to spend dot-gov money first. 

 

Some Gov't functions should not be cut at all, and some should be 97% cut, depending on if the activity is mandated by the Supreme Law of the United States. 

Austerity means less Government hand outs and fewer gov't jobs handing out goodies. 

 

Cheers. 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:54 | 1463987 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Hope & Change bitchez.   Quite a few Umaba c*** s'ers here on ZH voted for this in 2008.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:42 | 1464115 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

yeah it started in 2008.. before then everything was perfect. fucking nigger ruined the world!

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:28 | 1463547 malikai
malikai's picture

Hardly Marxism. In real Marxism, people like Blankfein and Dimon would have been hanging from trees long ago.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:32 | 1463559 bankrupt JPM bu...
bankrupt JPM buy silver's picture

hanging is soooo 18th century...

www.silvergoldsilver.blogspot.com

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:39 | 1463579 legal eagle
legal eagle's picture

Tell Saddam that. Just so are clear, the fraud by the government and the banks caused this mess. The sheeple did not.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:54 | 1463631 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Steve Pieczenik said Saddam was not hung, and is alive and kicking.  The big lie is afoot.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:02 | 1463661 TheBadgersSett
TheBadgersSett's picture

True story. Uncle Saddam and Bin Laden are both working as tour reps on the Bulgarian Riviera.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:23 | 1463732 cossack55
cossack55's picture

I thought they were chillin' with Ken Lay in Denver.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 18:28 | 1464766 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

Nah, they're all down in Costa Rica knockin' back girlie drinks and wank spankin' 12 year old virgins.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 19:23 | 1464910 toady
toady's picture

Don't forget Hendrix, Jim Morrison & JFK (he is getting really old now...)

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:56 | 1463993 Slewburger
Slewburger's picture

Fucktard junkers.

Agreed. Saddam is/was a CIA asset under Bush I. Poor quality phone video was "leaked", clearly propaganda. As is the pictures of the "fortress" Tim Osman was in.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:31 | 1463749 gwar5
gwar5's picture

Well, you're right but....

The banks get rich pushing massive U.S. social spending and debt pushed by the socialist democrat politicians. Our debt becomes their most secure assets, fractional banking does the rest. I don't ever recall Goldman Sachs or JPM lobbying for USA austerity. They own us. 

The do-gooder street marxist/socialists are just tools sabotaging their own warped cause and making the banks rich.

"Marxism never sleeps, so neither shall I." -- Gulag inmate, Soviet Union

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:48 | 1463799 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Because without SS those old people wouldn't still be beholden to the banks, just directly?

Pull the other one.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:19 | 1464050 Dan Alter
Dan Alter's picture

Massive social spending?? You are grossly misinformed. Social Security has 2.4 trillion of US govt IOUs in its trust fund on which Congress has graciously agreed to pay 2% interest. It is massively over funded. At 4% we would be talking about an increase in benefits and a cut in the tax rate. You do know how compound interest works don't you?

We are spending a trillion a year on six wars of aggression and not a word about it from you. War spending when we are not being attacked is murder by us. We do not have a budget problem without the war spending.

We spend 18% of GDP on medical, twice what every other industrial country spends to give medical to all there  citizens. We do not have a budget problem with a rational single payer system, and that does not mean a government or insurance company bureaucrat can tell you who to see or what to take.

 

Our problem is people like you who spit out the word socialism like a dirty word, and then speak and act as if promoting the General Welfare = socialism is wrong.

We live by exchange and that is by inspection a social activity.

Grow a mind capable of critical thinking instead of spouting untrue and non factual nonsense.

 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:53 | 1464312 Greenhead
Greenhead's picture

And where do you suppose the money should come from to pay the interest or redeem the tbills?  That money is gone, it has been spent, it doesn't belong to the government anymore.  So where should the new money come from?  Taxes?  More debt? Printing?  You seem to believe that there is something sacred about Social Security that makes it different from all the other entitlement programs.  Just because someone paid taxes with a special name to them doesn't make them any different to the fedgov once they came in the door.  Get over yourself and the idea that any promise has to always be kept by these guys.  Things change and all kinds of folks have gotten money from Social Security for many different reasons that had nothing to do with "retirement".  Now the money is gone, but we can always raise the debt ceiling and borrow more!  Someone will surely want to loan us more money so we can replace the Trust Fund bonds.  Grow a mind...

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 20:20 | 1465006 Miss anthrope
Miss anthrope's picture

"Things change and all kinds of folks have gotten money from Social Security for many different reasons that had nothing to do with "retirement". 

 

Can I just say that you must be young.  I kept thinking that the young people around here might swing the pendulum back to honesty and integrity.  Looks like that isn't happening. 

Why doesn't someone sue the FEDS over the situation that SS is a ponzi. If it is ponzi then it is illegal.  Isn't it. This is when my libertarian roots and my self-reliance back-ground start getting me in trouble with the "entitlement"  and big government players crowd.

Mon, 07/18/2011 - 14:33 | 1467287 rufus13
rufus13's picture

SSI: biggest, longest-running Ponzi scheme of all time. Yes, it's been illegal the whole time, but Roosevelt threatened to pack the SCOTUS if they didn't okay it. After a while workers hoped to get some of their money back and it became politically popular. 

It sucks to be 40-something and be looking at 27 more years of paying in more-and-more for nothing. 

 

Cheers. 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 16:38 | 1464438 robobbob
robobbob's picture

ummm, you understand where that "interest" comes from, right? and what eventually happens to all systems dependant on "compound" interest, right?

"spit out the word socialism like a dirty word", and yes, it is a filthy word to anyone who believes in individual freedom.

it is a synonym for slavery. its the elites road back to the good old days of feudalism, complete with fealty and retainers.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 16:36 | 1464443 AustriAnnie
AustriAnnie's picture

Saying that SS is over funded because it is full of IOU's which are essentially owed from one gov't entity to another, on top of which it must pay interest to itself, is a little bit of a stretch don't you think?

Social Security is essentially a TAX.  It is a wealth transfer from workers to non-workers.  There is no "trust fund" which indicates anything other than wealth transfer and interest payments which will cost Americans even more money (compounded interest is burden to the taxpayers in this instance, it does not indicate growth of wealth, but rather growth of debt).  Anytime there is a small surplus in SS taxes, the gov't spends the money and issues an IOU to itself.  As we all know, the gov't does not create wealth with which to pay off debts, the burden of the debt falls on taxpayers and/or loss of purchasing power by means of debasing the currency to pay debt with cheaper dollars, throwing the burden on future generations.

"The government admits as much in the FY 1996 Budget of the United States document entitled Analytical Perspectives, "These balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures -- but only in a bookkeeping sense. Unlike the assets of private pension plans, they do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. ...When determining the trust fund balances, the government normally considers both public transactions and intra-governmental transfers. But in determining whether a trust fund program contributes to the deficit, it can be useful to consider just the public transactions. For example, in FY 1994 the Social Security Trust Fund took in $335.0 billion in tax receipts from the public. It spent $317.6 in benefit payments to the public. This gave it a public transactions accounting basis surplus of $17.4 billion. That was a real surplus, which Congress spent. However, when intra-governmental interest and contributions transfers are included, the Social Security Trust Fund had a surplus of $56.8 billion. This is the amount of bogus securities the government issued to itself for that trust fund. The real surplus, $17.4 billion, was used as an offset to general expenditures, an action which the government brags about as a method of reducing the deficit but which in actuality was a general tax increase hidden in FICA taxes during the 1980s under the guise of "prefunding" benefits: prior to this time Social Security had generally levied only the taxes necessary for the payment of benefits.(5) Since the trust fund securities cannot and do not finance program expenditures, this is clearly a deceitful abuse of language.

While it's true that "a trust fund must use its income for purposes designated by law," this law requires any surplus to be "invested" in Treasury securities.(6) Never mind that spending the actual cash surplus on general expenditures while writing yourself an IOU does not constitute an "investment" in any meaningful sense of the term: Congress interprets the law in this manner and the public lacks legal standing to challenge this interpretation, since by law it is the U.S. Government, not the public, which owns the trust funds' income and assets."http://grove.ufl.edu/~leo/fed_trust_funds.html

There are multiple sources which explain this.  Even gov't publications have admitted as much, and Alan Greenspan admitted it as well.

http://cafehayek.com/2011/07/the-fraud-of-the-social-security-trust-fund...

http://mises.org/daily/949

http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/trustfunds.html

 

I'll be the first to agree with you that the cost of war is a larger contributor to our financial problems. I'd love to see the war spending stop as well.  I will agree with you that we live by exchange and that it is a social activity.  VOLUNTARY exchange is an activity of free men.  Exchange of wealth from one party to another, by force, is slavery.

 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:55 | 1463990 Freddie
Freddie's picture

The sheeple watching elites TV for the 24x7 brainwashing enabled it.  TV is the matrix to brainwash the sheep.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:01 | 1464011 snowball777
snowball777's picture

You scrub up nice too.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:43 | 1464119 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

he is a repubic hair plant.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:58 | 1463643 SuperRay
SuperRay's picture

i don't get it...so you send me to a promo for some scumbag movie that glorifies the criminals who continue to rape us?  wtf?

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:53 | 1463818 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Light a banker a fire, keep him warm for the night. Light a banker on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:33 | 1463564 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Exactly.

How many "transfer payments" have the banksters received?

Hard to blame people for joining the "I'm broke, bail me out and give me food" bandwagon.

How many banksters get catered lunches with our politicians that they have bought, and get bailed out and loans at 0.25% from Uncle Ham on the backs of our children?

What part of "moral hazard" do those fools in Washington and Wall Street not understand?

Hangings, more hangings.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:42 | 1463592 malikai
malikai's picture

They understand the facts perfectly well. We are not here by accident.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:15 | 1463702 101 years and c...
101 years and counting's picture

"Hangings, more hangings."

Um, at this point, I'd be happy with some perp walks. 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:24 | 1463735 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Screw that. Beheadings, baby, speaking of healthcare, where is Dr. Guillotine?

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:58 | 1463639 nonclaim
nonclaim's picture

Hardly Marxism. In real Marxism, people like [... would be dead.]

Only in theory. In all real life implementations it needed a powerful oligarchy to "make it work". Paradoxically, it'll always need an oligarchy to function and, thus, will never work as envisioned. [Not to mention this is the least problem of the whole Marxism, which is completely flawed.]

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:06 | 1463675 disabledvet
Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:22 | 1463728 Founders Keeper
Founders Keeper's picture

+1

 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:58 | 1463642 tom
tom's picture

You're apparently thinking of some kind of "real" Marxism that has never happened and never will. In real-world Marxism, guys like Blankfein and Dimon became heads of big socialist enterprises. And then they became oligarchs under perestroika, and presidents in the early post-communist era.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:01 | 1463654 malikai
malikai's picture

Stalinism or Post-Stalinism != Marxism. Just ask Trotsky.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:22 | 1463727 tom
tom's picture

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and Maoism isn't Marxism, and Pol-potism isn't Marxism, and Hoxha-ism isn't Marxism, and Tito-ism isn't Marxism, and Castro-ism isn't Marxism, and so on and so on until we get down to ... "real" Marxism exists only in your head.

And my guess is you will never, ever be pinned down into explaining what exactly "real Marxism" is. Because that's not the point. The real-world Marxists I listed above never explained how Marxism would work because that wasn't the point, they just wanted power. Today's theoretical Marxists won't explain how Marxism would work because that's not the point, they don't want to spoil their fantasy by facing up to difficult-to-answer questions like how and by who investment and resource-allocation decisions would be made and how those people's power would be checked and balanced.

PS Trotsky was just jealous that Lenin primed his rival for the tob job and not him. The harsh truth is, Lenin preferred Stalin, probably knew very well that Stalin would eventualy kill Trotsky, and didn't much mind.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:34 | 1463754 malikai
malikai's picture

Having not been there, I consider myself in no position to comment on what Lenin wanted. How you find yourself qualified to speak so authoritatively is beyond me.

I am not a Marxist, Socialist, or Communist. So your attempt to suck me into a debate of any (ism) will be fruitless. I have, however studied Marx considerably and can say categorically that any implementation of Marxism requires by definition the elimination of the bourgeois and capitalists, of which Dimon and Blankfein are certainly classed.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:39 | 1463765 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Bourgeoise, perhaps, but not capitalists.  They much more closely resemble party leaders than capitalists.  Remember, these are the guys controlling the government.

But Marxists never see that the world around them is the end result of their "ideal".  When you take according to ability, and give according to need, ability disappears, and needs explode.  Eventually, you have to use punishment to force people to work.  And those who are in charge of dispensing the punishment, well, they aren't very well going to punish themselves, now are they?

Perverse incentives destroy civilizations.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:57 | 1463787 malikai
malikai's picture

I agree with bourgeoise. A also agree with your statement below. They are party leaders. Which, by nature of their business <=> government relationship makes this a defacto fascist state. Couple that with the fake patriotism and welfare/warfare state and it is more like 'nationalist socialism', or nazism.

This should not be news to anyone here.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:09 | 1464188 smore
smore's picture

Disagree with both of your bourgeoise's.

The word is "bourgeois".  You might be thinking of the word "bourgeoisie", as in my favorite Flaubert quote:

"Hatred of the bourgeoisie is the beginning of wisdom."

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:49 | 1463954 nonclaim
nonclaim's picture

I have, however studied Marx considerably [...]

Did you notice the part where he says (paraphrasing) only the proletarians, living through their miserable lives, could clearly state what he was going to state, while he was not one of them. It started with a gigantic lie and ended with mass assassinations. Great guy!

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 16:09 | 1464351 malikai
malikai's picture

Marx didn't kill anybody. He was a philosopher and economic scholor. Nothing more, nothing less. It was the people involved in the revolutions who did the killings. Do we consider Plato to be an even larger killer of the masses, since it was he who "invented" Democracy?

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 17:17 | 1464564 robobbob
robobbob's picture

I don't recall Heidegger pulling a trigger on anyone. or Nietzsche. or Goebbels. or even "the unnamed One". They only created the ideas. The most dangerous weapons are only made of words.

And I don't recall Plato advocating for the systematic elimination of entire classes of people or the use of revolutionary force to transform society. When Marxists advocate revolution, you don't think they mean nerf guns and water balloons?

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 20:17 | 1464998 malikai
malikai's picture

No, they certainly don't. But now that you mention it. A revolution involving nerf guns and water balloons sounds pretty cool. I could picture the revolutionary flag being a water balloon with a nerf gun in the background. Or, maybe like the chinese style, with a nerf gun and three water balloons to symbolize the students, workers, and the party. All we need now is a ideology.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:53 | 1464311 tom
tom's picture

Well if the main criteria of real Marxism is elimination of the bourgeois and capitalists, then obviously stalinism, polpotism and maoism are as real as it gets.

As for Lenin, it is a fact that he preferred Stalin evidenced by everything he did to pave Stalin's way. The rest I qualified with a probably, but is well grounded. I suggest reading Lenin's own writings and "young Stalin" for example.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 16:16 | 1464373 malikai
malikai's picture

It is not the 'main criteria', it is a necessary step in the revolution in order to prevent the counter-revolutions.

Stalinism, polpotism, and maoism all replaced the bourgeoise with beaurocracy. They are not the same, as in a communist society it is direct democracy, not beaurocracy which decides matters of state. Have you heard of any beaurocrats in Stalin's CCCP ever being recalled by the people?

I totally agree with you that every implementation thus far of "communism" has been an absolute failure in any sense of the word. I also do not believe Marxism, Communism, or even Socialism is possible to implement. If any of them were, the world would be much different today.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:42 | 1463776 Strike Back
Strike Back's picture

I agree, as I have made the same arguments against Marxists before.  But you could say the same thing about capitalism.  People saying that oligarchical crony capitalism isn't real capitalism sound just like idealistic socialists arguing that Stalinism et al. isn't real communism.  All the "isms" have just been a facade so far for oligarchy. 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:20 | 1464212 smore
smore's picture

Well, I make similar arguments in favor of capitalism.  I don't  think it's quite the same.  "Oligarchical crony capitalism" is the use of capital to corrupt the government.  There is plenty, in fact the majority, of capitalism of the small biz variety that has nothing to do with corruption.  The same can't be said of Marxism.  There is no such thing as "small scale, local, innocent" Marxism, because Marx's whole theory involves control by the state. 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:47 | 1463788 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Marxism isn't a political or economic system--it's a philosophy. 

There's nothing to "explain" when people ask how it would work.  You may as well ask how "Christian" society would work.  Christianity is a way of thinking about the world, not a blueprint for how to control a society.

Socialism/communism are the political/economic systems inspired by Marxist philosophy, and you can see how they work by looking at any number of countries around the world.  Several anarchist movements were inspired by Marxism.

It's not a blueprint.  Just a theoretical model.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:50 | 1464139 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

"Just a theoretical model."

that distracts the sheep who want to be pigs, and the poorly developed intellectuals who can blather on about semantics and split hairs.  

 

 

 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:05 | 1464180 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

It certainly doesn't distract near as many sheep as Christianity.  Of course it doesn't offer to take away their sins, either, so maybe it's just poor marketing.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:32 | 1464251 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

its brand recognition

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:53 | 1463817 spooz
spooz's picture

what we are seeing is crony capitalism, not marxism.  your little pretend scenario is just that.  pretend.  no big bad socialist wolf at yer door.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 19:46 | 1463923 Mad Cow
Mad Cow's picture

Whatever anyone chooses to call it, it is irrelevant. There is no human system, be it regional or global, that can be created, that doesn't end up the same way, which is, power and wealth for the few, and hardship for the rest.

Humans don't change, while systems do. After the fall of any system, the sheep simply wait for the next set of sociopaths to lead them to the promised land and the next sheering.

Until humanity becomes an adult, and doesn't require mommy and daddy .gov, the same results will happen over and over again. Personally I don't think humans will ever grow up, thus, the same old shit, over and over again.

In fact, one could argue that humans are becoming more infantile all the time.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:39 | 1463948 skipjack
skipjack's picture

No, what we are seeing is fascism.  If that term makes you want to scream like a girl, then call it corporatism.  What it ain't is any kind of capitalism.  Ever see anyone call the USSR "crony communism" ?  No, didn't think so.

 

If you have to qualify "capitalism", it isn't.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:04 | 1463672 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

Yeah, them + about 20 million other Americans. Besides, if marxist/leninist had their way, 'our' society would have already collapsed and we would be well on our way to beginning anew.

This hybrid bullshit is only delaying the inevitable.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:26 | 1463711 HL Shancken
HL Shancken's picture

You have no real or meaningful of accurate understanding of Marxism. You do not understand that Marxism, far from being an economic theory or system, is nothing more than a blueprint for revolution against those that Marx hated.

 

Not only do you not understand Marxism, but you are ignorant of history, Marxist tactics and strategy, and the fact that your ignorance is a result of the effort of Marxists themselves.

 

You have never heard of Lenin's NEP, which convinced the Western world that Marxism itself had been abandoned and induced free world investment into the USSR in the 1920's. You are completely unaware of the falseness of the Sino-Soviet split and the other mock divisions within the Communist bloc which tricked the Western world into believing that strengthening one Marxist tentacle via economic stimulation thereby weakened and demoralized other, seemingly opposing Marxist states. You have never heard of the 1960 81 Party Congress which ratified and compelled the Marxist long-range strategy of both detente and belligerance, as necessary, to each individual Marxist state.

 

You lack understanding of and belief in the power of deception and the use of infiltration and subversion by Marxists of non-Marxist countries and the US especially. You do not understand the concept of 'by any and all means' laid out by Gramsci. to think that you know anything about the Marxian dialectic, so critical to understanding the world in the past century, is obviously ridiculous.

 

You do not know of the testimony of Jan Sejna, the highest ranking Marxist military official ever to defect, or of Anatoliy Golitsyn, who detailed so extensively the Marxist plan going forward. For these reasons you're unaware of the co-option of hundreds of Western banks as early as the 1960's by Marxists. You have no capacity to understand the use of blackmail, extortion, and other means of inducement used against Western capital institutions, or the fact that once compromised, always compromised.

 

I am not up to this task of informing you of the complexities of Marxist strategy, tactics, and methods of influence. I am not able to paint a picture that you any more than glance at and go on your way unaffected. But Jeff Nyquist is. If your eyes are not too clouded, you will see things for what they are if you spend just a few moments that it will take to read this:

 

http://thefinalphaseforum.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=44

 

If you are not already too far gone you will intuitively realize that here is the truth. That in such a short essay you have discovered the way to truth and understanding. When you set off down this road you will discover the signifignace of Bill Clinton's two trips behind the Iron Curtain in 1969-70. You will perceive that the Kissinger inducement to open up China to Western trade in 1971 was a trick. You will peel back the thin layer of solipsism which has you believing that your enemies in the Marxist world, in a state of constant and unceasing warfare against the non-communist world, would never adopt such measures as I have described and have become like us. You will see that we have become like them, and why, but only if you have retained the Aristotelian capacity to think. If the Marxists have not deprived you of this, you as an individual have a chance of understanding the world as it is, and not as the Marxists tell you it is.

 

Once again, the short piece that will alter your thinking and life, if you are not too far gone:

 

http://thefinalphaseforum.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=44

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:28 | 1463742 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Great links. Much appreciated.

+ .45ACP

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:30 | 1463747 PaperBugsBurn
PaperBugsBurn's picture

You see, this blog has an unstated policy of self-censorhip whereby they never give its readers (and fellow citizens) the whole picture about the "domestic enemies". It is a true disservice to their fellow Americans.

Marxism? Bah! Fascism is its real face:

Michael Hudson is a highly-regarded economist. He is a Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, who has advised the U.S., Canadian, Mexican and Latvian governments as well as the United Nations Institute for Training and Research. He is a former Wall Street economist at Chase Manhattan Bank who also helped establish the world’s first sovereign debt fund.

Hudson has frequently described Wall Street as "parasitic". For example, in a 2003 interview, Hudson said:

The problem with parasites is not merely that they siphon off the food and nourishment of their host, crippling its reproductive power, but that they take over the host's brain as well. The parasite tricks the host into thinking that it is feeding itself.

Something like this is happening today as the financial sector is devouring the industrial sector. Finance capital pretends that its growth is that of industrial capital formation. That is why the financial bubble is called "wealth creation," as if it were what progressive economic reformers envisioned a century ago. They condemned rent and monopoly profit, but never dreamed that the financiers would end up devouring landlord and industrialist alike. Emperors of Finance have trumped Barons of Property and Captains of Industry.
More recently, Hudson said:

You can think of the financial sector as being wrapped around the real economy, almost like a parasite, and that's why it's been called parasitic for so long. The financial sector extracts interest from the economy, the property sector extracts economic rent, as do monopolies. Now the key thing about parasites, is that it's not simply that they extract nourishment from the host. The parasite takes over the
host's brain, to make it think it's part of the economy, to make it think
it's part of the host's own body, and, in fact, that's it almost like a child of the host, to be protected. And that's what the financial sector has done today.

You have Obama coming out and saying, "We have to save the banks in order to save the real economy". The fact is, you can't serve both the parasite and the host.
And see this.

On August 10th, Hudson went even further. Specifically, he said:

The giant financial institutions have already killed their host - the real American economy
Since they realize that the American economy is dead, they are trying to suck as much blood out of America as possible while the corpse is still warm
Because the American economy is dead, their plan is to soon jump to another host. They will ship all of their money overseas

Thanks for the link.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:52 | 1463814 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Mad DOW disease.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:13 | 1463869 PaperBugsBurn
PaperBugsBurn's picture

wow

I read your link and I can tell you it's a mish-mash of jingoism and pseudo-logic.

Nope, not correct.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:39 | 1463767 malikai
malikai's picture

Have you seen your psychiatrist lately?

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:05 | 1463850 Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

Not old enough to remember the cold war very clearly, but I have looked at the history of it, and this has been my operating theory for some time.  Personally, I think the lynchpin of the strategy was when the students took over the campuses at Berkley in the 60s.  Things began to spread like cancer after that.

Like I said, I wasn't there, and only have the histories to study- we all know how useful that is.  But there is a significant change in American culture after the "Summer of Love" that can be palpably felt when reading any work written prior to that time.  I generally tell people that the Soviets may have lost the Cold War first, but we're losing it too- it just took a little longer.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 16:01 | 1464327 Gargoyle
Gargoyle's picture

I was there, and that's exactly how I saw then and now.

+1

 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:43 | 1464193 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

"the public and American officials reject the idea of an ongoing Soviet deception strategy to bring America to its knees."

 

If there is an ongoing deception strategy by the soviets, what constitutes a soviet needs to be defined for the readers.  Off the cuff many  would assume the moscow or russian connection but i think this assumption is wrong though there is likely a strong feeling of dislike amongst russians of the US.   I might suggest that the US senate is a soviet like the wall street banks are.  If americans as the author argued do not believe in a deception run from moscow, the americans I think are correct because the deception is being directed by the media networks and the education system.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:29 | 1463744 ArmchairRevolut...
ArmchairRevolutionary's picture

When you put it like that, it kind of makes me long for Marxism.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:22 | 1464216 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

No, no, no.  

I saw with my own eyes what East Germany and Poland were like in 1984.  Marxism is BAD!

I won't even bother to add what the Communists in post WWII Warsaw did to my grandmother, heading up the US Red Cross efforts in Poland.  Poland was almost completely destroyed by the Nazis AND the Soviet Union.

Anyone who says that Marxism is a good thing knows NOTHING about it.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 17:30 | 1464601 goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

DoChen, you and I both. Spent many years at the East/West German border and went across the border (officially) for the first time couple of months after the fall of the wall. Soviet Marxist control of East Germany kept it at WWII levels of development while their neighbors across the border were decades ahead in economic development.

West Germans drove BWMs and East Germans drove Trablants. Enough said.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:34 | 1463755 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You don't hang party leaders, Komrade.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:37 | 1463763 malikai
malikai's picture

Da, da!

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:10 | 1463860 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Trotsky? (shot not hanged, but...)

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:33 | 1463918 Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson's picture

Trotsky took an ice pick ("Ice Axe" in Wiki-P) to the brain/head  in Mexico in the early '50s.

 

CW

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:09 | 1464037 snowball777
snowball777's picture

How visceral.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:05 | 1464179 Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson's picture

*Sigh*.

1940 in Mexico.

Sorry.

 

CW

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:07 | 1464182 Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson's picture

Another Double Post.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:14 | 1464198 captcorona
captcorona's picture

Hardly. In real Marxism, people like Blankfein and Dimon would be unelected political leaders as they create the money from thin air to fund the Government. Specially since the working class would no longer work as the encentive of keeping the fruits of their labor would evaporate. Since the tax base would shrivel up to nothing only counterfeiring...I mean Banking would have the means to fund the Government. Thus making Blankfein and Dimon National heros!

See Plank #5 Marx and Engles Communist Manifesto

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Today we call it the Federal Reserve System of which Goldman Sachs (Gansters Paradise) and JP Morgan (the Predator of last resort) are high ranking members.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:36 | 1463572 Manzilla
Manzilla's picture

That happens later. First you have to lay the ground work.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:37 | 1463574 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

How is it marxistic specific (save in hope to generate as the last weeks have been slow weeks)?

This includes people in active military duty, so any imperialistic power involved in a spiral of wars will show a rise here and this probably way before Marx was born.

So what is the point here save a hit generating title?

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:40 | 1463587 Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

Since you have found the last two weeks slow save for a spate of sovereign welfare state bankruptcies, here is some engrossing reading.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:49 | 1463615 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

I dont care about Marxism. Like other school of economics, it is built on a bubble of nothing. The only good point about marxism is that the school of economics was killed and is only a scapegoat for other schools of economics to divert blame on. Cheap trick.

The chart sharpest incline corresponds with beginning of heavy involvement of US in the vietnam war (US starting to deploy actively units in 1965)

etc...

Save baiting for people and generating more hits, dunno see the rationale of linking to marxism...

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:15 | 1463700 mr.5280
mr.5280's picture

What does "transfer payments" suggest?

 

(there are at least 3 economic theories this could pull from).

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:16 | 1463883 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Actually, all of them; it's just a matter of the direction of transfer.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 16:53 | 1464499 mr.5280
mr.5280's picture

Indeed.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:58 | 1463999 joak
joak's picture

+100

People are still stuck with left-right squabbles... while the Ponzi is above all of that. They don't understand those squabbles have been used by banksters as a diversion.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:47 | 1464130 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

if it dont make dollars! it dont make sense!

 

but abortion, I mean anti abortion rallies will save the country as it is robbed blind! LULZ!!

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 19:35 | 1464932 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

A nation should deserve to survive.

Murdering your own young doesn't seem to path there.

What other species does that? Crocodiles?

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:02 | 1463644 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 Our politicians are in the pocket of, beholden to, smitten with, and constrained by the financial elite and the corporations headed by that elite. That is NOT "Marxism" or "socialism".

Modern capitalism is debt-driven. Debt fuels and necessitates expansion. Credit provides for militarism. Conquest of markets and resources is required for expansion.

There is an interesting article on this topic at the 321gold website:

"Debt-based money issued from central banks on which interest accrues is the basis of capitalist economies.

 

It is the charging of interest on money issued as loans from a central bank that is the foundation of capitalism...

The Austrian school of economics emerged at a time when communism and socialism were offered as alternatives to the capitalist model. Because of the central role of government inherent in communist and socialist models, the potential for tyranny was obvious...

That capitalism, however, offered the same potential is less obvious. The threat of capitalism to human freedom is even more insidious because of its covert agenda and global presence … "

 

http://www.321gold.com/editorials/schoon/schoon071411.html

 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:44 | 1463780 Marco
Marco's picture

In a way modern fiat money capitalism is allowing what Marx foretold ... exclusive and unbreakable ownership of the productive means. Before it was never really possible, there was too much land and natural resources were too cheap. You could always just start competing.

 

Now though there is not enough land and natural resources are expensive. The bourgeoise will lose money on the collapse just like everyone else, but they won't lose their ownership of everything ... it's collateral for all the debt after all. Welcome to the new age of rent seeking (AKA feudalism).

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:20 | 1463897 Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

Don't discount the long-term abilities of the Russian controlling classes.  They were able to go toe-to-toe with the US for decades, with little more than tin cans and string.  

If you read the link Tyler provided above, you will see that we are not demonstrating Marxism in the US- we are demonstrating what Marxism claims Capitalism leads to.  It's another dialectic, just not domestically manufactured.

Put it this way- if I want to discredit your ideals, and justify my own, I would not try to make you more like myself.  I would hijack your professed beliefs and use them to drive you into extremism that would expose all your system's flaws in striking relief, even if those flaws were minor to begin with.

How else do you explain the rabid defense of even self-destructive possibilities in the capitalistic system by the very people who are being hurt by them?  It's no longer about common sense and what works in practice, it's about an otherwise reasonable system co-opted and turned into a characature of itself.  Nothing continues to work when it's fringe elements are inflated and made the focus of the system.

All that being said, I have no idea if the problem is domestic or Soviet in origin- it's just a theory, but it fits really well.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:23 | 1464225 captcorona
captcorona's picture

What your refer too as "Modern Capitalism" is simply old school "Fascism". Merger of State and Corporate powers to controls the means of production through regulation taxation and State sponsred monolopy.

In Capitalism, there is competition and failure for private gain or loss as the means of production is controlled through individuals through voluntary exchange.

When the entire economic model begins with a State sponsored monolopy over the issue of debt and credit, you can no longer have a capitalist economic model.

Marx, wrote that the best and most peaceful way to turn a free society into a Marxist Society (Socialism, Fascism, Communism) was through inflation (State sponsored counterfeiting) and progressive taxation. See Plank #5 in Marx Engles Communist Manifesto.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:23 | 1463731 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

Tyler - most private jobs are in the "services" sector now - they are farming oil BTUs  like the rest of us.

Only a tiny proportion of the working population creates new organic wealth in the primary and secondary industries that can either be private or public.

Service industries at their best only increase the efficiency of the existing core wealth , at their worst they extract wealth in a parasitical fashion.

Theres little point getting your knickers in a twist about a false dicotomey - productivity only cares about productivity - it does not care if it is public or private.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:35 | 1463758 Tyler Durden
Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:50 | 1463806 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

Yes it all comes back to the petro currency in my opinion - labour has little value in a monetory system that only attaches value to oil.

Hence the destruction of capital both human & physical to maintain the flow of units to the remaining but declining holders of financial capital.

The depletion genie can only deplete - it knows nothing else.

 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:03 | 1464018 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

What's it mean to "create organic wealth"? 

I'd be interested to hear examples, because honestly, considering how often the phrase is used, my ability to interpret it is very hazy and dependent on the speaker.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:37 | 1464101 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

Create new energy systems or technology to utilize this energy - the services sector spends this innovation into hopefully useful goods & services.

Think of windmills in Holland that created new farmland and wealth that  was subseqently spent in the cities.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:49 | 1464137 JW n FL
JW n FL's picture

and a Hearty Good Afternoon to You, Sir!

I hope all is well! with You and Yours!!

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:12 | 1464194 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

Yes I am doing OK JW - just trying to avoid the Sharks.

I recommend a Gold cage.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnE5_T-O1_Y

 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:02 | 1464164 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

That's a good example.  I agree.  The creation of wealth is an *extremely* rare activity.

We should ditch the current economic system tomorrow and base the next currency on units of energy.  It's the only way I can imagine we can generate realistic accounting for anyone.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:23 | 1464220 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

Nah - have a national currency creation system & balance world trade with a international Gold exchange - but its not going to happen , Gold is more directly tied to the fractional money system now (see freegold ECB) which is not its best use in my opinion - the entire system is too opaque.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:34 | 1464258 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Gold's just a marker for energy.  Why not use the real thing? 

Not only does it simplify "mark-to-market" of every major input/output of a commercial entity, it provides subsistence inputs to the unemployed, undereducated, etc.

The biggest advantage I see, though, is that global "economic growth" becomes truly representative of a form of human advancement.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:51 | 1464309 THE DORK OF CORK
THE DORK OF CORK's picture

How could you measure it ?

Not in BTUs as each type of energy generating technology has different capital requirements  - you need symbols to convey a symbolic idea & gold is it in my opinion.

However there not much point in it as the banks will use Gold in their fractional system so our conversation is academic.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 19:07 | 1464825 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Blunderdog

Corky Dorky hasn't given you a crystal clear understanding of where mans wealth comes from and i'm not surprised as i couldn't find it anywhere either, i had to work it out all by myself... so here it is maybe for the first time;

i. Agriculture (mans first revolution and spring of productive wealth, managing food)

ii. Resources (metals such as iron ore) mans second great spurt of wealth combine with..

iii. Energy (wood then coal, oil and gas) which created the Industrial Revolution 

These are mans 3 great 'wealth streams' that brought man from cave to Condo and a comfortable/luxurious living. All 3 wealth streams require 1 great requirement, knowledge.

Mans knowledge of Earths resources and how to exploit/manage/apply them. Combining energy with mans understanding how to smelt and shape iron ore led to the great Industrial Revolution in England, the coal furnace, the steam engine (knowledge = technology). Combining energy with mans knowledge of Earths elements gives:

1 + 1 = 42

Namely 1 unit of energy plus 1 unit of iron ore equals a steam train (42). That is productivity, that is wealth creation. Nature does the exact same thing, life is the productive use of elements, your body is 'dead' pat elements obined into a biological machine many millions of times greater than the sum of its elemental parts

So Earths resources are the source of all mans wealth creation when combined with mans knowledge of those elements and how to use them. All else (banking, insurance, water supply, transport etc) are in effect administrative, consumers of mans wealth. The Internet Revolution does not create wealth of itself but it does increase the efficiency and speed of communication, such as the spread of ideas

So energy, industry (mining and manufacturing of resources) and agriculture are mans 3 great sources of prodictive wealth creation, all else is spreading the productivite wealth (42) around

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 20:26 | 1465022 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Sounds pretty good.  I think it reinforces the utility of energy as the ultimate monetary unit. 

Agriculture was conversion of solar energy into food.  Mining/forging/manufacture/etc was conversion of food-energy into tools and useful materials.

The fossil-fuel revolution is just the depletion of a resource to do more of the first two things.  We don't have to till fields by hand these days, so we use less food-energy and more oil-energy to grow an acre of wheat.  The real equation has not been changed.

(To touch on DORK's question above--I don't think you have to measure anything too specifically.  As a form of exchange medium assignment of value to any arbitrary unit of energy will float to represent true cost.  We have a definition for "horsepower" and "joule" and whatever else, but what determines the market-value for 100 kilojoules or 10HP/hrs is what someone can do with it.  In the very same way that the "market-value" of something like gold is defined by how easily someone can produce it for you.)

It gets a bit abstract.  I think return to a fixed-commodity peg for a currency system is a thousand times better than what we've currently got, but just a few thousand years out of date given our level of technological development.  Technology has reduced effective energy costs for a great many things to tiny fractions of the costs 2000 years ago.  If we develop it intelligently, the further reduction of energy costs for other things truly do create real wealth for everyone on the planet.

Mon, 07/18/2011 - 06:17 | 1465662 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Blunderdog

I do not agree we need a 'patch' for money like basing our money on a Gold standard or using Oil either. The ONLY reason very wise men call for this 'fix' is based on a repeated historical truth, that Central banks and banksters run amock with the power and vandalise the money system in their greed. As history shows with the Roman Empire and many times over in the West (Germany, Austria, England and America) banksters trash and debase the money until their vandalism is so great society progressively loses all confidence and it's dropped

So the wise men of our time are calling for a 'patch'. To base money in Gold or Oil so that the banksters cannot runaway print our means of exchange into valueless oblivion. Gold (purportedly!) keeps them honest...... er, no it doesn't, never has before and never will. Banksters will always find a way around the rules and gradually debase and debauch the system. History teaches us this absolute truth as well

So the call for a Gold standard to me is as stupid as the Tea Parties call for a slimmed down Govt. It is a 'patch' on a crap system but not a solution. The problem both of central banking and central Govt is they are MONOPOLY Systems. No matter how many rules you make, no matter if you try to peg your system to some standard or other you can never patch up, mend or botch-up the tragedy of a monopoly system

The solution to our money problems is a FREE MARKET in money, namely competition. Only competition provides a host of alternatives competing to be best and offer real value. A monopoly money system doesn't give people a choice and it doesn't give a crap, it can rest on its fat fuking monopoly arse

To me no wise man is the font of all knowledge and has the single solution to our money problems. The free market will provide many solutions more innovative than any single man of committee of men could ever imagine or come up with. The free market continually innovates and progresses through competition and that competition also gives people a choice (power to decide). The free market through the force of competition also continually weeds out the shit. No patching up, legislating or applying a Gold standard to a fatuous monopoly money system will (ever) give you all those benefits 

A free market (no regulations or laws on money whatsoever) is the solution, let the market (not wise men or committees) work out which ones are best

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 17:42 | 1464634 goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

Although I can not speak for TDFK, I will venture to respond.

Organic wealth creation refers to the actual creation of goods that can be marketed/sold to consumers at market prices. A farmer that produces wheat is creating wealth, the Farm Bureau clerk that stops by to tell him he is doing it wrong is not.

Although it is tempting to include services as part of wealth creation I can not. Cutting your hair or watching your kids at day care, although a necessary service, does not produce wealth.

What is wealth? Wealth is, in essence, the tools and supplies needed to support your quality of life. A plot of farm land is wealth, when owned by a farmer. A steel lathe is wealth, when owned by a machinist in the production of goods. A loaf of bread or a bushel of wheat is wealth. Any item that can keep man alive, healthy or assist in that man’s production is wealth. The can of beans in your pantry is wealth. The Federal Reserve Note in your pocket stamped “one dollar” is not.

Anyone who produces wealth, as defined above increases the overall wealth of the nation. Anyone who provides services, whether needed or not, doe not increase the overall wealth.

Mon, 07/18/2011 - 05:15 | 1465639 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

Goldsaver

What is wealth? Wealth is profit (excess productivity).

We have communities that are still in 'Hunter Gatherer' mode, the basic (natures) form of living such as Fishing villages. Say the fishing community eat 100 fish a day and catch 300 fish a day. The excess of their hunting gathering, 200 fish a day, is excess and can be sold/traded. The price realised of those 200 fish less their cost for hunting (boats, manpower etc), is wealth that can be saved or wealth that can be spent bringing their community into the modern world (buying cars, houses, TV's etc)

Next stage up from the basic first stage of wealth creation of Hunter Gathering was the Agricultural Revolution, mans knowledge of and exploitation/cultivating/breeding of plants. A farming community eats 300 bushels of produce a year but produces 2,000 bushels a year. The excess production (wealth) again can be sold/traded and either saved or spent bringing the farmers modern living.

Wealth is not "what keeps man alive" such as water or wheat. Our biological machine (body) needs resources just like a plant to stay alive. Wealth is quite seperate, it is in effect knowledge of our enviroment and how to exploit it so that 1 + 1 = 42. Iron ore does not keep us alive nor energy such as coal or oil resources but combine the 2 (1+1) using mans liquid super intelligence of a brain on how to exploit the resources properties you build a power station and a manufacturing plant to churn out tools (sheers, tractors, chairs, laptops etc). 

You do not become wealthier by eating and drinking more, though you store some of this spending of wealth around your belly as fat! You become wealtheir by either producing or by saving excess productivity (profit). Again drugs and Doctors to keep your body alive is not wealth, you are spending wealth to cure an ailment. It is a cost, a spending of some of the 42 of profit

A can of beans is not stored wealth, it is stored spending. A Federal Reserve note is wealth while people except it as a means of exchange for their productivity, their labour, as a way of swapping value to trade. It will lose its wealth value when people realise the system of exchange is a ponzi scheme for banks, a means of fabricating value/wealth to enrich a parasitcal elite from no productive effort.

I agree with you services do not create wealth. That includes banking, insurance, media, tourism etc. They are spending of the 42

The other important point about wealth is there is no limit to its upside except mans acquiring rate of knowledge. The means of producing wealth, mans knowledge, can also be lost or destroyed to the downside. There are a number of societies, such as the Ming Dynasty or demise of the Roman Empire, where the people lost knowledge and went backwards down the ladder for decades and even Centuries

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:08 | 1463857 InconvenientCou...
InconvenientCounterParty's picture

Is the "marxist" effect emergent from the meme or is the meme itself emergent from the description of observed human behavior?

With 6-7B humans on this rock and climbing fast, the need for more efficiency in distribution of vital resources is the only alternative to mass die-off. It's an important signal when the die-off is preferred.

 

 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:23 | 1463885 spooz
spooz's picture

I don't get the Marxist threat. I don't get it at all. I could see a slide towards fascism perhaps, but Marxism? Too convoluted a conspiracy theory.  Red herring territory.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 15:47 | 1464288 smore
smore's picture

Very engrossing.

Marx considered that these socio-economic conflicts have historically manifested themselves as distinct stages (one transitional) of development in Western Europe.[10]

  1. Primitive Communism: as in co-operative tribal societies.
  2. Slave Society: a development of tribal progression to city-state; Aristocracy is born.
  3. Feudalism: aristocrats are the ruling class; merchants evolve into capitalists.
  4. Capitalism: capitalists are the ruling class, who create and employ the proletariat.
  5. Socialism: workers gain class consciousness, and via proletarian revolution depose the capitalist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, replacing it in turn with dictatorship of the proletariat through which the socialization of the means of production can be realized.
  6. Communism: a classless and stateless society.

I'm going to stop referring to Marxism now, and just say that what I object to is dictatorship of the proletariat.  As for Communism, that is clearly just a fantasy.

 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:51 | 1463621 thatthingcanfly
thatthingcanfly's picture

There are fewer personnel in the active military than you might think.

From WhiteHouse.gov, "The Department of Defense is the largest government agency, with more than 1.3 million men and women on active duty, nearly 700,000 civilian personnel, and 1.1 million citizens who serve in the National Guard and Reserve forces."

Subtracting the National Guard and Reserve forces (usually employed in other jobs except when putting in their weekend duties and two weeks per year activation, with some exceptions), that leaves 2 million on the government payroll for the DoD. The national population is 330 million. That yields 0.6%.

But the chart above shows almost 19% receiving paychecks from Uncle Sam.

Your point is stillborn.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:02 | 1463659 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

60% of federal civil servants work for the military, homeland security, or the CIA.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:16 | 1463708 Lowest Common D...
Lowest Common Denominator's picture

What rwe2late said.  There is much, much more to the military than soldiers carrying guns.  ThatThingCanFly's "we can still blame the serfs" gambit went down hard, eh?

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:29 | 1463745 thatthingcanfly
thatthingcanfly's picture

Yeah, he sure showed me a thing or two.

Do military members in the lower enlisted paygrades who qualify for food stamps count as "serfs?"

Either way, shame on me for blaming the serfs for the pay-them-to-sit-around policies of their government.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:14 | 1463872 Lowest Common D...
Lowest Common Denominator's picture

Sorry I seemed to have misinterpretted you're stand.  You were defending military spending, not taking a run at the needy.  My mistake.  In retrospect, I suppose your avatar shoulda tipped that off.  Hoo Ah, eh? 

 

There was a day when our military was worthy of praise, you are an echo of that day.  Today, the military is a corrupted imperial shadow of itself.  You might as well be lauding some criminal gang or another.  But just look at that helicoptor! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAQ32LLjNn8

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:39 | 1463581 ml8ml8
ml8ml8's picture

I'd like to see comparative charts for Cuba, Venezuela, and the PIIGS.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:43 | 1463596 Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

So would we. Please share if you find it.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:46 | 1463784 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

Hold on...i'm looking here...wait a minute....hold it, hold it....there we go. I think i found it right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b9K5L-UgKpc

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:50 | 1463808 Ethics Gradient
Ethics Gradient's picture

I've got a map for the UK last year (yup, I know this wasn't what you were after, but you may still find it intersting):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/16/public-sector-employment-statistics-map-by-authority#

Seems you've got a way to go in the States before you catch up with the UK.... 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:55 | 1463821 Ethics Gradient
Ethics Gradient's picture

You'll like this as well. It's taken from wikipedia (which I think will be slightly more accurate than official Greek figures):

The public sector accounts for about 40 percent of GDP. The service sector contributes 78.5 percent of total GDP, industry 17.6 percent, and agriculture 4 percent

Which, if my maths is right, means that Greek GDP is 140.1% of Greek GDP.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:51 | 1463584 oldmanagain
oldmanagain's picture

What the chart shows is a deep recession which could have been much worse without those payments.  The payments are the result of stupid econ, not the cause. The concentration of wealth and tax trends explain the scenario.

Our society is no longer hunters and gathers as envisioned as the ideal goal by austrians. Although they may wish to return to lords and peasant tenants, there is not enough time.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:42 | 1463590 Atomizer
Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:45 | 1463602 ThirdCoastSurfer
ThirdCoastSurfer's picture

I bet a majority of those 19 million vote Republican. 

Time to give them what they want. 

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:47 | 1463608 Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

The scale is not millions. It is % of total population.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:52 | 1463623 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

You want us to believe 1 in 5 US of A persons is in a transfer payment type category?

Seems... likely.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:54 | 1463632 Corn1945
Corn1945's picture

If anything, this number is low. I bet it is closer to 50%.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:31 | 1463748 Rainman
Rainman's picture

.... especially if we include many of the .gov-secured student " LOANS " that will never be repaid.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 13:34 | 1463881 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Maybe not 50%, but I agree, this seems low to me.

I'd like to see analysis on the impact of government contracts, subsidies and bailouts.  A much more complicated picture, but equally important.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 14:26 | 1464074 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

I wonder if the chart includes people who are dependents of those receiving either a paycheck or a benefit?

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 18:25 | 1464754 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

even at the height of Communist power the State didn't run more than 80% of the economy.. some British towns are 70% State financed economies

In Scotland the 'choice' of candidates is beyond pathetic;

Labour (Marxist)

Liberal (closet Marxist)

SNP (Marxist)

Tory (Socialist)

if you wonder why the country is deep in debt and totally f**ked socialism-Marxism above is your answer

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:48 | 1463606 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

The government needs the people, it is not the other way around.  The question is not, 'How should our government form us?' but 'How should we form our government?'  America is living in a vacuum.  It relies on military jobs for the poor but able, everyone else poor wants a handout, and the middle class act immune to any problems, head held in the clouds.  The rich run a system that keeps the poor destitute, and uninformed, while they ran sack the world.  Whose fault is it?  Life can be heaven and it can be hell; for the most part, we choose.

Freedom lies in self governance, and that self governance carries on to the establishment.   Is it hard to escape?  It can be nearly impossible.  But no one can help you.  You must help yourself.  Together we can change the system.  But it will take all of us acting in accordance.

Sun, 07/17/2011 - 12:36 | 1463761 Doña K
Doña K's picture

Some problem here.

  1. You can not educate the masses overnight.
  2. You can not detoxify the addicts overnight
  3. You can not reverse 100 year policies
  4. You can not erase discrimination overnight.

The system needs a good cleansing and the only way is the natural way. Let it burn down and regenerate itself like a phoenix.

Current example is health insurance. The higher the rates go, the more people and companies opt out, which forces even higher prices to sustain itself. Just give it a few years and check the results.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!