The Defamation Of Independence, Or Getting Nothing For Something

Tyler Durden's picture

From Bill Buckler, author of The Privateer

Getting Nothing For Something

One of the great ironies of the way that politics and economics is conducted in our “modern” societies is that the great majority of those who are lured into going along with the game by the promise of “something for nothing” end up in a situation where their payoff is “nothing for something”.

A truism of the retail trade is that you get what you pay for. This means that REAL quality costs more than the run of the mill. It has to. It takes longer to make. It uses superior raw materials. It requires a higher level of skill from those making it. It lasts longer. And it does what it is supposed to do better. There are many people who cannot afford or do not want real quality. But there are also many others who stridently maintain that there is no such thing as “quality” and that the widget that they paid $50 for is “just as good” as the one in the shop across the street that cost you $100.

There is great wisdom in the old adage that you should buy the best you can afford. If the item is vital to your well being or your livelihood, stretch what you can afford as far as it will go. But the operative word here is “afford”. Nowadays, people don’t look at the price tag, they look at the limit on their credit card(s). If they are buying a house, they don’t look at the cost of the house - and the mortgage - they look at the required down payment. They don’t look at what is left over after they have made the purchase. They think about “owning” the item. They don’t think about paying for it.

The old “buy now - pay later” - attitude leads to a lot of woe when the ability to pay dries up for whatever reason. Bad as that can often be, there is something much worse. That is the acceptance of the claim that government-run economies and welfare states hide behind - the claim that it is possible to get “something for nothing”. Everybody knows that this just ain’t so. But they see what appears to be people getting something for nothing all around them so they decide that it must “work” - somehow.

What the last five years has begun to teach an ever greater number of people is that those who succumb to the siren song of “something for nothing” end up with “nothing for something”. It’s a mugs game.

The Defamation Of Independence

Mr Bernanke and his colleagues all over the central banking world are well aware of their fundamental problem. If there is one “entity” in all modern societies where the very concept of “savings” is seen as a deadly danger it is government. The act of saving (and access to something WORTH saving) makes for a nation of independent and increasingly prosperous individuals. Such individuals do not look for something for nothing. An individual who can sustain his or her life by their own effort has little need of being “governed” and will not be “ruled”. That makes the job of governance very easy, but the “job” of ruling prohibitively difficult. Since a government does not produce, it cannot “save” in the real meaning of the term. All it can do is to minimise its demand on those who DO save, those who consume LESS than they produce. That is anathema to a government intent on gaining the power necessary to “run” an economy.

The purpose of a “welfare state” is to convince a majority of the people that savings are not necessary. Once a welfare state has been put into operation - as it has been all over the developed world for a century or so - those in power go further. Their new task is to convince their subjects that the act of saving is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous to their “prosperity”. This would seem at first glance to be both a ridiculous and a formidably difficult task. It is. It has taken our “powers that be” a long time to succeed.

But succeed they have. The majority of the subjects of government all over the world have swapped independence for “entitlements”. That act, all by itself, has impoverished every nation in terms of REAL wealth. The higher the pile of IOUs pile up - the greater the impoverishment becomes.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sandmann's picture

The Road To Serfdom by Hayek makes this point clearly

falak pema's picture

How can anybody who looks at society through the consumer lens ONLY and expresses social norms in terms of trade only be a reference for defining what society is ?

What happened to value systems and the place of ethics and morals in the societal equation?

These new philosophers who jumped on the Economic thread post Marx and industrial revolution, to define the be all and end all of society, just ZAPPED three thousand years of human experience and struggle.

1776 USA was not born on that thread, it was born on the basis of an IDEAL; where is that ideal gone if expressed ONLY in terms of the consumer prism of Hayek which totally debases the citizen function of man in society? 



Now the Oligarchs RUN state to their designs; just like supreme Oligarch, Caesar, primus inter pares, did with Roman Senate! 

We are back to square one! The road to Serfdom has now been hijacked by those who sang Hayek's song in Machiavellian sleight of hand. Hayek's spiel on inevitable verticality resulting from higher education just means the game is not a simple trade off on a linear scale of economic efficiency in society but a more complex, holisitic system, more three dimensional than linear where other criteria enter into account in a holistic vision of society.

Hayekian reasoning is now dépassé as too simplistic; like Ayn Rand. Modern society requires other societal skills, that is evident to anybody with a modicum of sincerity and respect for society's real problems; aka demographics, ecology, runaway consumerism, ageing pyramid etc...

Thank you very much for spouting pure theory and forgetting pragmatic reality. 


GetZeeGold's picture



Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights


He could have asked around for a Bible.....but he was in a really big hurry. Like anyone is going to notice anyway.


The Alarmist's picture

Couldn't use a bible ... converted to Islam years ago.

Jena's picture

Much as I found Brennan's swearing in with the Constitution without the Bill of Rights rather creepy, there was refreshing sort of honesty about it.

archon's picture

But the "social norms" you speak of are already valued in terms of consumer value.  The State takes about 50% of my income in taxes, fees, and payments of various forms, in the name of "social norms" or the "common good".  That is real money, not just "theoretical money".  They use that money to pay unproductive bureaucrats, and give single moms, unemployed people, "the needy", and a host of other people who didn't earn that money food stamps, unemployment, welfare, and all kind of freebies at my expense.  The money they take from me is precisely the amount of money that I will never get to spend on my own family, my own community, my own friends, local businesses, and other worthy and "needy" causes in my own realm of influence. 

Question 1: So, what is the value of these "social norms" you speak of?  Answer 1: About 50% of my paycheck.

falak pema's picture

ok, there are trade offs on the amount the state should take. That is an acceptable ratonale to be decided by the elected and controlled by the people via elections or via straw polls. That is the meaning of society, a dynamics that recognises there are trade offs and perpetually ADAPTS theory (laws, pieces of paper) to the reality of changing technology/social expectations.

But selling the whole economy down the river to the Oligarchs, in the name of entrepreneurial freedom, whereas in reality its CORPOFASCISM, their secret, unstated model, is not the ideal that 1776 was all about.  We are there ...time and time again.

Just saying, there has to be balance between the achievers and the non achievers, whatever the playing field, economics or football or what have you. Every body has to get a bite at the cherry. A society that EXCLUDES people is not one worth supporting. That is the true indicator of the road to serfdom; when people are excluded 'cos they don't fit the zeitgeist NORM; whether it be race, creed or gender, whether it be economic predatory nature, or might is right MAfia rule of law. And being blasé about that, singing "glory to the achievers" is not civilization; its asking for trouble and we have our fair share of it today, thanks to the RR/MG brigade and their mantra of "greed is good" and "deregulate global mayhem to China and beyond'. 


Fishthatlived's picture

"Every body has to get a bite at the cherry."

No, everybody has to have the OPPORTUNITY to get a bite at the cherry. Plenty have no desire to bite.

falak pema's picture

depends how hungry they are...thats part of social elasticity; the boomerang effect, but it has to be there; if it goes INELASTIC then they end up in inferno! Social nets should avoid that people get PUSHED over the brink, like expendable sheeple. 

But seriously, does everybody have an opportunity for a bite at the cherry today in first world; ask those guys in Greece; totally innocent of their own social/material decadence imposed in TOP down mode. by corrupt Oligarchs running wild.

JOYFUL's picture

...corrupt Oligarchs running wild....welcome to our world of conspiracy theories Squire! Though you may disdain those not of your own making, it seems that the horse can indeed be both led to water...and -on a long enough time line - induced to drink it!

Oligarchs. Corruption. Wild Runnings.

Sounds just like bizness as usual though the ages. Those Black Nobility Venetians who you constantly seek to scuse from the scrutiny of historical judgement - masters of the game... that has been continued on from before and ever since their time. A Khazarian time line...if you will...with a little bit of Etruscan divinatory necromancy thrown in for good measure.

You're making excellent progress. As far as code words like 'oligarchs' go, "ask those guys in Greece"...they know the score...

Salonikan Sabbateans and Lurianic Kabbalists running wild through the western world - Oh vey, you don't say!


Ghordius's picture

Joyful, it's not a question of conspiratory organizations, it's a mindset, the way I understand falak. An extremely commercial mindset, that reduces human experience to consumption and production and pure materialism

Take the concept of citizenship and state, through this specific lens you'd have nations organized as shareholder based enterprises and pure mercenary wars

They aren't (yet?) because they evolved in a different turf, one for which part of the US/UK are nearly (hydroponically?) detached by now

This mindset, in it's pure form, spontaneously leads to networks and Old Boys Clubs. Buccaneers recognize each others and find easily the right
sort of clients and henchmen, and is easily used in supporting propaganda

Eventually it collapses in itself, as it happened several times in history, then the sheer weight it sets on stranger's cooperation versus peer cooperation can't be held since distrust kills commercial empires quicker than egalitarian or authoritarian setups, as in the extreme examples of the Soviet Union (70 years of posing as pure eqalitarian) and Nazi Germany (where Genetic Destiny was crowned as God-Emperor)

There IS a reason for those three great ideological families, they are most probably psychlogically even needed, and they come back in force if too long neglected

so - imho no, buccaneers and mercenaries and great commercial enterprises are manifestations of a mindset - knights, honour, mafia,holy flags and tribal help and conflicts of another mindset, and forced group-think, uniformity of expectations and lifestyles and collectivism of a third mindset

Vidar's picture

There is no justification for the state getting even one cent. ALL taxation is THEFT. Make all taxes voluntary and disarm all the cops and other state agents, then we would be getting somewhere.

AnAnonymous's picture

1776 USA was not born on that thread, it was born on the basis of an IDEAL; where is that ideal gone if expressed ONLY in terms of the consumer prism of Hayek which totally debases the citizen function of man in society?

Ah, but the ideal is still kicking and rearing.
'American' ways are still the same as on day one.

JOYFUL's picture

impressive reach on the idiomatic and colloquial ESL campaign. My compliments on your progress as well. Clearly you are putting all that empty time at the dusty and folorn Ordos Public Security Compound desk to good use.

Bye the's buck ing and rearing...but kicking will come in handy, nonetheless...there's, for instance, kicking the bucket -what the "Merikan ideal" did long time gone... and Amerikan ways have changed, a bundle...they used to kick out tyrants, now they just kick the can.

AnAnonymous's picture

'Americans' used to kick out tyrants?

But tyrants did that a lot in the past.

Tyrants fighting tyrants, that is a lot of wars.

So what is the message here?

'Americans' have been kicking the can from day one. Kicking the can is 'american'

When the noble de Lafayette asked Jefferson about freeing the slaves and ending slavery to come in par with the speech on freedom, Jefferson retorted maybe in a few generations.

Another obvious evidence that the 'american' ways have not changed.

It is 'american' fantasy to claim a change, especially tasted by 'americans' who fear to be next on the target list of 'americanism'.

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

AnAnonymous, the more I read you posts the more I am ashamed to be an American. Truly you have exposed us as the frauds we are, present as well as historically. Every day I learn from you American history I never knew existed! I bow to you and your race. You are obviously the shining light of truth the world needs today. The people here just can't appreciate the wisdom you share. They're just jealous they can't be Chinese citizens so don't take offense at their angry responses. Instead, revel in your superiority because you clearly are. All eyes will turn to china as the beacon of hope and freedom you will bring to the world.


nmewn's picture

1776 & 1980?

I'd say, beginning 1860 through 1945 there was a sustained assault on our population as it relates to how we would be governed in the future, law, taxation, public education and individualism as it relates to our values as a society.

And the People lost.

It is within these short 85yrs years, that we find the "progressive" income tax, the birth of the Federal Reserve, the suspension of individual Constitutional rights because they interfere with the iron fist of nanny-state progress, the Prussian model of public education for the "good of the state", the direct election of federal senators instead of them representing the individual states governmental bodies.

And we look around at each other, in wide eyed wonderment at just why it is, that it took the voice of one man, standing alone on the floor of the US Senate, refusing to yield, asking simply, is it acceptable to us, as a society, for the President of the United States to order citizen executions without anything but the stroke of his pen?

Thats how far freedom & liberty has fallen from our grasp. It shouldn't even be open for debate, a given, that such a thing could never happen. But the Senate just confirmed a man who will do it without hesitation and there is a stooge sitting in the WH who will sign off on it as a matter of executive power.

Liberty died in those 85yrs. a slow strangulation, she fought as best she could...but there were just too many with their hands reaching for her throat.

falak pema's picture

that is an evolution that many consider as the MAKING of America. Liberty was seen to go to the trend setters at the expense of the small guy.

Hey that is capitalism in essence. Its not Davy Crockett style its Rockafella stuff!

Denying it is historical revisionism, changing it for the future would be revolution! 

So your opinion of that is contrary to the majority and to history. You would like to go back to bottom up grass roots logic and decentralised government. History decided otherwise. Your premise that the majority lost is debatable as the majority voted for it massively; both parties buying into it since 1860 onwards, after the south lost the battle (another decisive nation building watershed). 

Will the american people go BACK to that original model?

I think not...especially those who run Corporate America, where the power TRULY is. 

I don't see a blue print for that other US reality taking form; except here on ZH...not in mainstream USA.

Unless the Ron PAul legacy gets resuscitated BIGTIME!

Good luck with that! 

nmewn's picture

"Your premise that the majority lost is debatable as the majority voted for it massively..."

No, my premise is not debatable at all, it is absolutely correct and I covered it when I said...

"Liberty died in those 85yrs. a slow strangulation, she fought as best she could...but there were just too many with their hands reaching for her throat."

Those were the hands of democracy, not those who desire a republic based on iron clad law. Those were the hands of the "free shit society" and the pandering pols who can never say no.

And you bring up Davy Crockett, an honorable man to be sure. But he also got sucked into "democratic-statist matrix think" based on emotion, premised on, doing right for his fellow man, instead of what is right for the nation as a whole and the law he swore to protect & defend.

An excerpt...

"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.

So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

And there you have it.

Often someone is accused of being heartless or uncaring for resisting the temptation to spend other peoples money. The opposite of that is, the man in question, can never be described as a thief.

Bastiat's picture

Enjoyed both of those posts, thanks.

nmewn's picture

Thank you both.

Its taken years for one segment to come to understand another segment of society, not just here but globally. If we can't change the way they think, even after everything being revealed these last few least they can be made to feel guilty for being the authoritarian hacks and manipulating busy-bodies they are, by continuing to promote failure.

Thats assuming of course, that they have eyes or any conscience left in them at all.

glenlloyd's picture

I don't believe it can be better said.

geewhiz's picture

Liberty is not quite dead yet, but she is gurgling very loudly. Gun sales are up bigtime and when its no longer possible for the dumbed down majority to delude themselves that they are free maybe some kind of backlash will take place. What else are all those secret FEMA detention camps for? Our oppressors must know how the end game will be played out, hope it doesn't end something like the Bolshevic "revolution" did. Guns won't work to stop this very thought out enslavement but I think an Orwellian 1984 or North Korean type society is achievable, let North Korea be our role model society.

AnAnonymous's picture

Liberty died in those 85yrs. a slow strangulation, she fought as best she could...


Liberty in America died when the Emancipation Act was signed. Before that date, America was a temple for Freedom.

Signed: an American.

petolo's picture

Falak, you have made my day. A sincere thank you.

malek's picture

 "...too simplistic..."

Nothing else I need to quote from your post. You have swallowed hook, line and sinker the mantra of the ruling class: more complex is better.

Maybe you should ask yourself what set of ethics and morals and ideals are the best, and if those you selected are simple or complex.

Sandmann's picture

Individual freedom cannot be reconciled with the supremacy of one single purpose to which the whole of society is permanently subordinated....................There are three main reasons why such a numerous group, with fairly similar views, is not likely to be formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society. First, the higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their tastes and views are differentiated. If we wish to find a high degree of uniformity in outlook, we have to descend to the regions of your moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive instincts prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards; it merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards....................Limitation of output so that prices will secure an “adequate” return, is the only way in which in a market economy producers can be guaranteed a certain income. If, as has become increasingly true, in each trade in which conditions improve, the members are allowed to exclude others in order to secure to themselves the full gain in the form of higher wages or profits, those in the trades where demand has fallen have nowhere to go, and every change becomes the cause of large unemployment. There can be little doubt that it is largely a consequence of the striving for security by these means in the last decades that unemployment and thus insecurity have so much increased. The utter hopelessness of the position of those who, in a society which has thus grown rigid, are left outside the range of sheltered occupation, can be appreciated only by those who have experienced it. There has never been a more cruel exploitation of one class by another than that of the less fortunate members of a group of producers by the well-established. This has been made possible by the "regulation" of competition. Few catch-words have done so much harm as the ideal of a "stabilization" of particular prices or wages, which, while securing the income of some, makes the position of the rest more and more precarious. In England and America special privileges, especially in the form of the "regulation" of competition, the "stabilization" of particular prices and wages, have assumed increasing importance. With every grant of such security to one group the insecurity of the rest necessarily increases. If you guarantee to some a fixed part of a variable cake, the share left to the rest is bound to fluctuate proportionally more than the size of the whole. And the essential element of security which the competitive system offers, the great variety of opportunities, is more and more reduced.       F A Hayek

The Heart's picture

Good news comes as the nation gets closer to the hundredth Monkey time. More and more people SEE what is happening and now the ship, she is steering into the wind to face the adversarial forces aligned against the real answers to the real problems. It only takes one upright soul to effect a real shift in the course of the whole ship. The answers are here. Who will step up to the plate to implement them?

From this article titled "Killing America."

"All foreign spy organizations such as the ADL and related lobbying groups such as Aipac  and the like must be registered as foreign intel operations and closely regulated.  No more Congress-critters should be allowed to sign loyalty oaths to anyone and must honor their oath to uphold the US Constitution from all enemies both Foreign and Domestic.  It must be made illegal for anyone who is a member of a secret society has sworn allegiance to extra-judicial entities to serve in in official capacity in the USG, LE, or the judiciary.

Any Congressperson being involved in or promoting unConstitutional or illegal acts or wars should be immediately impeached, and those who have committed Treason and Sedition must be tried in a suitable court of law by “we the people”.

And most of all the Federal Reserve Banking System, a private Delaware Corporation and its agent the IRS must be abolished and replaced by a new Central Bank solely owned and run by Americans, one that issues real money, not debt-based fiat notes, but real Greenbacks like the Colonialists or Abe Lincoln or what JFK tried to do.  The phony national debt must be cancelled, “fair trade” must replace “free trade” and proper tariffs must be assigned to imported goods to establish parity. All foreign aide must be stopped and all foreign US military bases closed and the troops brought home."

Read the rest of this very interesting report here.:

Inthemix96's picture

Hundreth monkey indeed Heart,

Do you think the big cheeses ever gave a thought to the game changer of human history?  They didnt understand the power or scope of the internet did they?

Five years or so ago people like me knew sweet fuck all about money or debt, or where it came from or how it perpetuates the to be frank, slave system placed around our collective necks.  But thanks to the web, and smashing places on it, such as this one, we do now.

I really believe the PTB are shitting themselves.  In fairness to them though, its ingenious how they have gotten away with it for so long, and given the chance most folk would screw someone over for a cheap profit, but alas, the sun is setting on this stage, we are just along for the ride.

archon's picture

Democracy doesn't guarantee freedom, only give it a chance to survive.  It's easy to take something from someone who never knew they had it in the first place, or had it, but didn't care, or didn't know its value.  People will gladly give up their freedoms cheaply, and those who would rule them will gladly take them, when people believe that "free" is when they get something for nothing, rather than to still have the choice to get something for something. 

If people don't like Ayn Rand now, they're really going to hate her when they're living in the world of "Atlas Shrugged".  The motor of the world is grinding to a halt with each passing day...

de3de8's picture

Unfortunately we will not see the return of liberty and freedom for a very long time.

philipat's picture

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

-A. Tytler (Attributed to)

SmallerGovNow2's picture

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from ....

We're there...

DCFusor's picture

First place I saw that was in the writings of Robert Heinlein.  A real conservative, not a right-wing-nut.

spooz's picture

Seems to me the thing that destroys democracy is the inequality created by the wealthy and powerful. They make sure the tax code favors them over the working stiffs and receive subsidies and bailouts that undermine fairness. And there is no need for them to vote for such largesse, they hire lobbyists to buy off our politicians.

I like this quote from Teddy Roosevelt better:

"To say that the thriftless, the lazy, the vicious, the incapable, ought to have the reward given to those who are farsighted, capable, and upright, is to say what is not true and cannot be true. Let us try to level up, but let us beware the evil of leveling down.”



DCFusor's picture

You didn't go back far enough.  Things like tax breaks don't matter unless there's already a (big enough) tax to create the possibility of redistrubutionism.

Vidar's picture

The problem is not democracy (though I agree it is doomed) but the state itself. As long as one group is given a monpoly of force and allowed to fund themslves by confiscating the wealth of those who produce, the cycle of power, death, and destruction will continue. Smash the State and establish a private law society.


AnAnonymous's picture

More 'american' gibberish like producing more than consuming.

It is quite telling that self proclaimed innovative people as 'Americans' pretend to be are unable to deliver on their cheap propaganda and renew it.

Production is an act of consumption.
Infinite growth, here we are. 'American' mantra.

Indeed,'americans' have to try to maintain the absolute nonsense of producing more than consuming.

Because in the consumption department, 'americans' are peerless. There are the 'americans' and the others.

And finally, as a corollary, if 'americans' are peerless at consumption, meaning nobody can even hope to rival with them, as a consequence, 'americans' are peerless at conservation, meaning that anyone out matches 'americans'.

Unfortunately for 'americans', you cant shine in both consumption and conservation department.

As the current situation would demand conservation efficient people,well, 'americans' can not tell as it would definitively exclude them from any position.

When you want a consumption job to be performed, ask an 'american'.Nobody can do better save another 'american'.

When you want a conservation job to be done, anyone can do a far better job than 'americans'.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

You made me laugh with your comment.

It is quite telling that self proclaimed educated people, as AnAnonymous pretends to be, are unable to deliver on their cheap propaganda and renew it.

Production is an act of consumption. Here we are, the mantra of AnAnonymous, the rejected thesis of a failed academic. Little surprise that he is compelled to trumpet his crackpot theories here, since he was laughed out of the university system.

Incidentally, it leads me to  something. Wonders if his rejected thesis, which sunk his doctoral ambition, was laughed out of an 'american' university. Just connecting.

When you want an offuscation job done, when you need to export the blame to a convenient exterior, when you need elaborate scapesgoatery and denial to avoid self indiction, ask a Chinese citizenism citizen. Nobody can do better save another Chinese citizenism citizen, especially one that is an embittered failed academic.

AnAnonymous's picture

Production is an act of consumption. Here we are, the mantra of AnAnonymous, the rejected thesis of a failed academic.

Only an 'american' could request a thesis to tell that production is an act of consumption.

Just for the fun and exposing once again the eternal nature of 'americans', mind to provide a single example of production that is not an act of consumption?

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous driveled:

Only an 'american' could request a thesis to tell that production is an act of consumption.

Your comment gave me a good chuckle. There was no request involved.

You have, on your own initiative, put forward here the thesis that production is consumption, a notion that a word and its antonym are equivalent in meaning. It is clear from some of the comments you've made here over the last three years that you're an educated person, so I would expect you to be able to support such an unusual proposition.

Yet all you've been able to offer is unsupported assertions, trite sloganeering, sanctimonious pecksniffery, and bitter invective. This vigorless defense of your thesis is the hallmark of a failed academic. The one thing that you have successfully demonstrated is that one can be educated and still have a tenuous grasp on reality.

Just for the fun and exposing once again the eternal nature of 'americans', mind to provide a single example of production that is not an act of consumption?

A single example? Such a triviality. Planting a garden, something which I will begin today, is such an act. Have I sufficiently exposed my eternal 'american' nature for your amusement?

I expect that, in accordance with your eternal nature, your response will be nothing more than convoluted word games or, far more likely, running away and saying nothing.

LongBallsShortBrains's picture

That's a broad brush you're painting with....

JOYFUL's picture

... 'americans' can not tell as it would definitively exclude them from any position....When you want a conservation job to be done, anyone can do a far better job than 'americans'.

Gotcha - a little too cute for your own good there Master Leung...can not...we went through that yesterday with the "GoldBear74" syntaxical terror tsunami; comment 3311803

correct usage requires cannot instead of can this case as well. But you already know that doncha!>>>? Since you are, clearly, GoldBear74!!! arrncha!!!!

Just another guy looking to make a splash, and a name for himself...while nursing a grudge that he didn't get the nod...which went to that real American Icon...Smokey. It's over bud...hand in your Party Card. Only Merikan bears can be productively conservationist and managing consumption of efficiently harvested public lands...and as a corollary.. prevent forest fires...they're Pandas just goof around lookin for grass and navel gaze!

I'll bet my bottom yuan you two never appear in the same room together!

AnAnonymous's picture

Ah, such a nice display of 'americanism'

When confronted that in a world heading for conservation, 'americans' are totally misplaced and an aberration so to tell, the 'american' will try to shift attention on a point of detail.

Back in the days, I had so much fun with that 'american' trait.

I usually snuffed anything about 'americanism' with small errors so that 'americans' could rush in and try to hide behind the details while the big picture was staring at them.

Until a day when an 'american', his face red with anger, jumped off his seat and shouted "dont you see, he is doing that on purpose" But that is another story.

Keep trying, 'americans', your 'american' nature dominates you.

akak's picture

Ah, such a nice display of AnAnonymystical hypocritizenism and inability to self-indict.

Back in the Long March of Insanitation and Little Red Book days, he had so much fun with the chinese citizenism trait of murdering his fellow citizenisms by the tens of millions.

Until a day when a fellow Chinese citizen, his inscrutable face reddish-yellow in anger, jumped from his roadside squatting position and shouted "Don't you see, we chinese citizenism citizens are as bad, or even worse, than US 'american' citizenism citizens in our blobbing-up and consumptionalizing?"  But that is another story.

Keep trying to avoid reality, AnAnonymystics, your 'chinese' citizenism eternal roadside crapmongering nature dominates you.

AnAnonymous's picture

Again that fantasy of chinese citizenism?
Fantasy is the last shelter for 'americans'.

akak's picture

Again that fantasy of US 'american' citizenism?

Fantasy, and scapesgoatery, is the last shelter for ananonymystics.

(Fantasy and scapesgoatery, and ragingly collectivist bigotry, that is.)

AnAnonymous's picture

Indians also thought that somehow independent life could save them.
As a side product, it gave the funny event of Tecumseh and fort detroit, and the emblematic 'american' situation of "selling guns, never used, dropped once" that would later turn to be a good measure of the spread of 'americanism'

'Americans' are creatures of theft. As such, anyone leaving on their borders or among them, is dragged in an attrition war.
Independence is a pipe dream in an 'american' world as in an 'american' world, you only own things that you can keep away from the 'americans'greed. And it takes resources to achieve that. Always more and more resources. Until you run out...