Guest Post: Why Things Will Get Worse - Much Worse

Tyler Durden's picture

Originally posted at Monty Pelerin's World blog,

It is easy to be upset about what is happening all around. The economy is being destroyed, deliberately, by insane economic policies. Incentives to work are being eliminated by punishing work. At the same time rewards are increasing for not working. Not surprisingly we get less of what we penalize (work) and more of what we subsidize (non-work).

As an economist I get sick over what I see happening to what was once a great engine of productivity, capital creation and improvements in standards of living.

After two centuries of progress that amazed the world, the conditions necessary for growth and productivity are steadily being removed. Their presence allowed the miracle of America. Their absence guarantees the decline. Carried to extreme, the US could become a second or third-world nation within a few decades. Virtually all changes in the last five to ten years point in this direction and these changes are accelerating.

As pained as the economic retrogression is, the loss of freedom is even more disturbing. It was free markets and free men that made America the dominant economic power and the beacon of freedom. Without freedom, no economic policy can succeed. Yet, just as economic policies seem designed to destroy rather than create, so too does the role of government as steadily destroys freedom with its expanded oppression and power. The absence of freedom is tyranny. The absence of freedom is also poverty.

Economic decline is difficult to convey, although data are useful.

The decline of liberty, however, is not easily quantifiable and even more difficult to communicate. An email from Simon Black, expresses his concern regarding Leviathan government and its increasing oppression. It provides as good a qualitative measure of what is occurring to freedom in this country:

By now it should be clear to anyone paying attention that most of Western civilization is on a dangerous slide into tyranny.


They’re confiscating funds directly from people’s bank accounts. They’re seizing reporters’ personal records and phone logs. They’re digitally spying on everyone’s emails.


They’ve authorized military detention and drone assassination of their own citizens.


They’re using tax offices to harass political opposition groups.


They tell us what we are allowed to eat and drink, what foods we are allowed to put in our own body.


Think about it. These are Soviet tactics, plain and simple.


What’s more, they don’t even care. They think we’re all idiots who are too stupid to even notice what they’re doing.


In fact, just a few days ago, Barack Obama staunchly defended his policies, saying “you can complain about Big Brother. . . but when you actually look at the details, then I think we’ve struck the right balance.” This is textbook sociopathic behavior: destructive, antisocial conduct and a complete lack of conscience.


Unfortunately this is just the beginning.


Imagine what it will look like in a few more years: trillions of dollars of more debt… more printed currency. More police state tactics. More invasions of privacy. More ridiculous regulations.

Unless government oppression is beaten back, there is no hope for the future. For those who focus on the foolish economic policies, they miss the root cause of all of our problems — oversized, overactive, interventionist, overcontrolling and oppressive government. Unless government can be reduced in size and power dramatically and then put back into its Constitutional box, nothing will improve in the economy. Ultimately the economy will collapse and freedom will be lost.

History shows no examples reversing these kinds of trends. Civilizations die as a result and then they rebuild from the ashes. But history never knew the flowering of such a vibrant civilization before our break from King George. It seems as though a similar miracle is required today.

I fear the majority of the American people are too dumbed down to understand what is happening to them and their country. They appear too content collecting whatever benefits the government buys them off with. These benefits will cease when the economy can no longer be pillaged. By then, it will likely be too late.

America will continue to exist and it will eventually be free and prosperous again. But there will be a long period, call it the modern-day  Dark Ages, before freedom and prosperity return. A century or so seems a reasonable guess. Evil will eventually be overcome, but not before generations suffer as a result of our allowing and enabling the growth in government power.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
lolmao500's picture

Carried to extreme, the US could become a second or third-world nation within a few decades.

Within a few decades?? You optimist! Some areas are ALREADY third world... Ever been to Camden, NJ? Detroit, Mi? Slab City, CA? The whole political establishment and police force has as much integrity as a third world country... 

Groundhog Day's picture

He lost me at "I'm an economist"

Jam Akin's picture

Was comparing notes with an old friend the other day and we both remarked on how much nastier business has become in recent times. 

markmotive's picture

Have we every really been free? Are simply noticing more because teleweb communications makes surveillance more prolific?

GAAP is crap's picture

"Have we every really been free?"


kinda of.  I'll go with this:

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
? Frank Zappa


BLOTTO's picture

Nothing New Under the Sun,


History is merely repeating itself.

Harlequin001's picture

'But history never knew the flowering of such a vibrant civilization before our break from King George. It seems as though a similar miracle is required today.'

What, you mean like Singapore, Australia and Hong Kong? All ex British colonies built with British capital atop the British civil service.

You didn't make America, the British did. You just voted in a bunch of slavers, smugglers and crooks after the event who didn't even give you all the vote because they said you could keep your guns.

Did you ever think anything good would come of it? Good Constitution, not. What a load of bollocks.

tenpanhandle's picture

screw you and the queen you rode in on.

Harlequin001's picture

touchy fuckers aren't you...

imaginalis's picture

Stasi vs German Queen



Harlequin001's picture

She kinda 'emigrated' don't you know...

They used to do that a lot, sort of 'cementing alliances' and all that.

Kind of stuff you can't do with a piece of paper... I mean Constitution...

Now that you can shit on... oh wait, they just did...

At least you have something useful nearby you can wipe your arse on eh...

fiftybagger's picture

When the black pope squashes you like the treasonous bugs you are, I hope you are the first under the boot.

Silver For The People

shovelhead's picture

U still mad bro?

You could always shoot yourself...

Oh no... you can't.


Harlequin001's picture

So, let me see, I may or may not have a Queen (depending on which nationality I might or might not be), but you're better off because you can shoot yourself?

You lucky, lucky bastard, I should be real jealous of that, but I'm not. Buy hey, you just go knock yourself out dude,

Somehow I don't think it will be my loss...

shovelhead's picture

...and you spell favor wrong too.

Fuckin Chavs.

Harlequin001's picture

No I don't.

Fuckin illiterates..

What are you going to dop now, eh, go shoot yourself eh, lucky, lucky you... Why am I conversing with an intellectual mushroom?

PiratePawpaw's picture

By "emigrating" and "cementing alliances" are you referring to the practice of European nobility of marrying off their daughters to the heads of other Royal families? A practice which eventually led to rather severe inbreeding.(Habsburg comes to mind)

Clearly this is a superior system to a document designed to protect the inalienable god-given rights of all men. Which was written on parchment BTW, not paper.

Harlequin001's picture

You mean, like the real one, the Magna Carta?

Or that piece of cheap bog roll you call the Constitution...

PiratePawpaw's picture

The Magna Carta was an important document to be sure. However it was only adopted by King James (I think) because it was forced on him by the barons. It was also heavily influenced by a similar french document that preceded it by over 100 years. And if I remember correctly, it only applied to "freemen", not serfs.

The US Constitution was in turn, influenced by and an improvement on, both of these earlier attempts.

But once again, I am left wondering how this tangent supports your positions on any of the earlier points. Perhaps now you will counter with a discussion of the superiority of the English Longbow (which was actually Welsh in origin).

Harlequin001's picture

No. but if you're inferring that because the Magna Carta was forced on a king (you think but aren't quite so sure who) that it importance is in some way diminished, or that Constitution that isn't doing quite so well nowadays is better because it is more modern I'm simply going to say that you are talking an awful lot of bollocks.

and no, I have better things to do than banter idle words about bows and arrows...

here. I've pasted the link so you can start learning your history. I already did this a long time ago at school, one of the benefits of being educated you know...

Have to go now so if you want to play again you have an open goal old stick, the other teams buggered off without conceding a point....

knock yerself out.

PiratePawpaw's picture

No, I'm inferring that the Magna Carta (while important) was only one step in a series, that it borrows heavily from an earlier french document, and that it is inferior to the Constitution because it applies to "some" men not "all". Granted, it took us 4 score and 7 years to apply it to the slaves which Britain played a large part in enslaving.

Glad you buggered yourself off though. Cheers old bean! stiff upper lip and all that.

Praetorian Guard's picture

Not ALL men were created equal, as noted in the Constitution... some were less equal, along with women...

PiratePawpaw's picture

You might want to read some history you limey twit. There wasnt much British capital spent in America after 1776 (when the vast majority of the US was established). Nor even before 1776 really. The Spanish and the French were more active in "building" colonies. The English mostly viewed the colonies as a place to get rid of undesirables then tax the hell out of their productivity.

There was however a considerable ammount of American capitol spent keeping Hitler out of Buckingham palace.

BTW: you're welcome.

Harlequin001's picture

Run that history by me again will ya, it sounds like you're making it up.

PiratePawpaw's picture

Which part? The part where most English emmigrants to the Americas were religious and political dissidents who established their colonies with little or no support from the crown and were later taxed by said crown if they became profitable? The English crown did play a more active role in establishing and supporting the colonies in the Caribbean, but as you may or may not know none of them were part of the US until relatively recently.

Or the part where the Spanish and French colonies were more subsidized by their respective crowns from the beginning in a search for raw materials(gold,furs,etc)? The young US later purchased the colonies from said crowns.(not much British capitol there either.)

Or the part where only 13 of the eventual 50 colonies/states had any English involvement at all. (and one of those was bought from the Dutch, not established by England)? The other 37 were purchased from Spain, France, Russia, or established en toto by the American colonist. So where again is all this "British Capitol" of which you speak?

However, in 1940, After Britain's brilliant campains to catch German bullets in Norway and France: A considerable ammount of American capitol including 50 Destroyers, countless merchant transports, thousands of tanks, and many tons of fuel and supplies (called Lend-Lease), along with squadrons of American pilots who joined the RAF, did prevent the German invasion of England (Operation SeaLion).

I can understand if you dont know US or world history, but you should at least learn you own history.

Edit: Dont get me wrong, I am not at all proud of what my country has become in the last 60 years or so. Nor am I one of those annoying Americans who goes around thinking the world forever owes us for the times when we helped someone else. (others have helped us too.) That is just part of being a good friend/neighbor. But your comments were factually wrong and a little too snotty to let go unchallenged.


Harlequin001's picture

Fuck me. I had no idea that you guys fought in WWII.

Did you eventually turn up?

Say it ain't so...

Well I never knew that. Thanks for that, enlightening for sure...

Nice to see your boys over there though eh, even if you did only pitch up for the after dinner drinks...

PiratePawpaw's picture

Clearly you have a dizzying intellect...

Your initial premise was that America was built on British capital. So far you have offered nothing to substantiate that claim. Score: 0

I have layed out a basic outline that not only refutes your claim, but demonstrates that Britain has actually benefited substantially from American capital. You have refuted niether point. Score:2

You:0 Me:2

care to play again?

Harlequin001's picture

I don't want to rain on your parade old stick but scoring yourself seems a little gratuitous and more so since you haven't demonstrated much of anything at all, simply made the same old bleating statements I hear time and again from a typical yank trying to justify a revolt against a monarch that set up one of many colonies overseas at British expense and sent a very large and expensive fleet to protect its trade routes so it could become  wealthy by trading with the rest of the world. Australia benefitted from it as did Singapore and Hong Kong, some of the largest and most important financial centers in the world today, as per my original statement above.

Apparently you guys didn't want to pay for it. You have refuted and established nothing. So, red card old stick, you're off...

Next time you want to play, bring a proper ball...

PiratePawpaw's picture

True, scoring myself does demonstrate a slight lack of Hubris; but Im Texan(I cant help it). :) Texas BTW was not at all established with British capital.

And true the 13 colonies of New England were "one of many colonies overseas". But they were not set up at great British expense. They were mostly private enterprises. King George only sent his very expensive fleet to to "protect us" from ourselves when the flow of taxes and raw materials was threatened. Hardly magnanimous or humanitarian, more like greedy.

Also true as I mentioned before, some of Britains colonies (Singapore and Hong Kong) did recieve more support than others. But, as you point out, this was more due to the profitability of the trade routes. Australia, as I recall, was a Penal Colony; very noble that.

"Apparently you guys didn't want to pay for it." What? Actually, I think our taxes and raw materials did rather directly pay for Britain's other colonial endeavors. That was kinda the point we got upset and revolted over.

Better attempt than your earlier ones. Keep trying old chap.



You remember that old ditty about not arguing with a fool

Harlequin Romance is all hat and no cattle


PiratePawpaw's picture

Im not sure that rose to the level of an arguement. But 'round here we tend to call BS when we see it.

PiratePawpaw's picture

As for the expensive fleets protecting trade routes:

In the western hemisphere Britain relied heavily on privateers because Britain was unwilling or unable to provide Royal Navy ships. These where independantly owned ships commissioned in the colonies by the crown(at the great expense of a piece of parchment) who fought the enemies of the British crown and surrendered most of the proceeds back to the crown. These proceeds(which were originally French, Spanish, or Dutch) financed Britains colonial efforts. This practice was quite unpopular back in "civilized" Europe as the line between privateer and pirate is kinda blurry depending on whether you gain or lose from the act.

How dare those silly American colonist revolt against such a "noble" British Monarch.


Yeah - Americans and Canadians showed up for the Spanish civil war, WW1, and WW2.

Amongst other ventures to keep inbred homosexual former Brittania's masters of the universe from getting all fucked up by either the Communists, or the Nazis, or both.

Not that you minded getting buggered, mind. 

PiratePawpaw's picture

As for the slavery point; I think they mostly came on British ships from colonies in Africa to work on plantations in British colonies mostly in the Caribbean.

edit: none of the down arrows are mine. I either up arrow or answer.

shovelhead's picture

He's just mad because somebody stole his Burburry cap and he got McD's mustard on his track suit.

IdiocracyIsAlreadyHere's picture

Ah the late great Frank Zappa.  I still remember the "Zappa for President" bumper stickers that started popping up in 1991.  Sadly, he would die only two short years later.  Frank Zappa may have been one of very few people who could have made a real difference as president.  His wonderful performance at the PMRC hearings showed that he was completely unafraid of the dog and pony show that calls itself "Congress".  A loss that still hurts...

Chuck Walla's picture


Obama has powers that Stalin never even dreamed of...

prains's picture

An email from Simon Black


nuf said

buyingsterling's picture

In this case he was spot on.

Davalicious's picture

Yes, but he/she is generally a dick.

Midasking's picture

The whole thing could be third world in a matter of weeks..

decon's picture

Fuck you and your link

Vooter's picture

I didn't make it all the way down the Salton Sea to Slab City, but I have been to Bombay Beach...just as nice!

IrritableBowels's picture

I've been to Camden, because I thought I would run outta gas before the Schuykill.  Pictured myself in a Juvenile video.


IrritableBowels's picture

Or a COPS episode.  It's really the worst place I've ever been to in my life.  (never been to MI)

OpTwoMistic's picture

There will be pockets of enlightenment and peace.  Anywhere there are armed citizens and patrols.  The rest, not so good.

When the food stamps stop, load up.

Henry Hub's picture

***America will continue to exist and it will eventually be free and prosperous again.***

I hope this is true, but I have to say in all honesty, I have serious doubts.

aint no fortunate son's picture

I don't believe it's government per se - I believe it's corporations that have bought govt across the board and dictate policy to govt - the Bigs - big jumbo insolvent CRIMINAL banks, Big oil, Big arms merchants/intelligence technology, Big healthcare, Big sock puppet media - they own both political crime syndicates lock stock and barrel... unless we get corporate amerika 100% out of government we are all well and truly fucked.

Unknown Poster's picture

I don't think politicians are for sale, you can only rent them.