Cronyism In The 21st Century

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Mark E. Jeftovic, CEO easyDNS Technologies; originally posted at,

Ghandi was once asked, "What do you think about Western Civilization?" to which he famously replied "I think it's a good idea." He may as well have been talking about free market capitalism.

Capital in the 21st Century has hit the world like a new teen idol sensation. Everybody is drinking the Kool-Aid and it's being held up as the most important book ever written on the subject of how runaway capitalism leads to wealth inequality. Paul Krugman of course, loves it. As does every head of state and political hack in the (formerly) free world. A text-book sized brick that can be condensed down to a couple bullet points:

  • that unchecked capitalism leads to increasing wealth inequality, and
  • this can be fixed through government management, most notably more taxes and higher minimum wages.

What's not to love?

There are many other refutations of Capital circulating, most of which address the numerous factual errors and flawed research methodologies in the book, and countering the income equality assertions with observations around how the standard of living generally increases across the board during periods of free(er) market capitalism (such as England during the industrial revolution under the classical gold standard or wider Europe during the High Middle Ages).

The age we live in today is not an example of this. I submit that the modern run of standard of living increases, say from end of WWII to present is not an example of "free markets given room to run", but rather a crack-up boom fuelled by credit expansion (cheap money) and cheap energy. This era is now drawing to a close, as the cost of energy inexorably rises and the global debt super-cycle finally hits a wall. After decades of government targeted inflation, after the better part of a decade of ZIRP, after increased regulations in every aspect of our lives, after civil liberties being for the most part abolished (after all, the government is allowed to assassinate any one of us and we are all under continuous pervasive surveillance) what is difficult to fathom is that political economists can still make hay in the world by blaming its problems on capitalism gone wild and runaway free markets. Put simply, true capitalism requires free markets, free markets require a free society and we do not live in a free society.

So let's do something different here and accept a core premise of Capital, and say that wealth inequality is increasing, and that it's a bad thing. Where the point is completely missed is in what causes it (ostensibly "free market capitalism") and what to do about it (increase government control, induce more inflation and raise taxes).

The point of this essay is to assert that it is not unchecked capital or runaway free markets that cause increasing wealth inequality, but rather that the underlying monetary system itself is hard-coded by an inner temple of ruling elites in a way which creates that inequality.

We'll see that wealth doesn't "run away" in a logarithmic fashion (perhaps hinted at by Pareto and captured in various "1% memes") but rather can be best visualized as a vortex, like a tornado, or more accurately, a black hole, a centre swirling around a political/monetary/cronyist nexus that sucks wealth into it from the periphery (the rest of society). Society itself is hard-wired to facilitate this in such an entrenched and subtle fashion that we have arrived in a zeitgeist in which the key facets of this system (the nature of money itself) is out-of-scope. It's not even part of the debate because almost everybody in society is oblivious to it's machinations. (This is the reason why in my writings I do not refer to underclass or overclass but rather, the "outer-class" and the inner elites.)

Because the nature of money itself has been so, for lack of a better word, "esotericized", I need to include Stephen Zarlenga's seminal work "The Lost Science of Money" in our expose. While Zarlenga blesses us with an exhaustive study of money and banking practices throughout history, and does a superb job deconstructing the perniciousness of central banking and debt based money systems, he erroneously arrives at conclusions favouring direct government creation of fiat money (he even came out in favour of that whole "Trillion Dollar Coin" idea because to him it signalled a tacit admission that the government doesn't really need the Federal Reserve). However even his arrival at this seemingly (to us) off-base solution tells us something vital about the system within which we are all immersed.

This is what it tells us: if smart, scholarly people happen to believe that government fiat money is both feasible and beneficial to society, and they put serious thought into devising such a system, what they will not come up with is one run by private central banks issuing debt-based money. They just won't. Any critical analysis would grasp that such an architecture would become a parasitic cancer on the entire society. When you realize this, it's hard not to posit a far-reaching conspiracy to institutionalize inequality. While I am a big believer in the maxim "never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidy" it to me falls short in this case. When we look at the structure of the entire monetary system and realize that it's the worst way possible to design a such a system if you have the best interests of the wider society in mind then you can't help but ask in whose interests was it designed and implemented?

As such, the system within which we find ourselves seems to be one that isn't designed to be in the best-interest of most of us reading this (and would remain true even if you were inexplicably reading this on Huffington Post, Slate or Business Insider).

If we want to understand where wealth inequality comes from, "The Lost Science of Money" is a good place to start  for two reasons: 1) his book is an exhaustive history of money, even if one disputes some of his takeaways from it) and 2) like many libertarians and an-caps, he understands the pernicious, malignant effect of private central banking. His ideal solutions may not fly (government controlled fiat, because governments will always inflate and debase) but his exposure of the fraud is convincing. Zarlenga's main thesis can be put briefly that the primary arena of human struggle throughout history has been mainly over the monetary control over societies. If Zarlenga had to put it in one sentence, which he did, it would be this one:

"It is by misdefining the nature of money, special interests have often been able to assume control of society's monetary system, and in turn, the society itself". (emphasis added, and you'll see why soon). He broke his book (almost as big as Capital) down into sections, examining that:

  • The Main Obstacle is The Mystification of Money
  • Monetary History Has Been Ignored
  • Monetary History Has Been Censored
  • Monetary Data is Often Misinterpreted

All of which is correct and explains why a book like Capital is on the New York Times Best Seller List. The premise that wealth inequality is caused by unchecked capital formation (a.k.a runaway free markets or capitalism gone wild) derives from the biggest misinterpretation of them all. It's not only monetary data that is misinterpreted, it's the entire framework around monetary policy itself which leads to these increasing imbalances. In other words, it is the structure of our monetary system itself which institutionalizes accelerating wealth inequality. Thus, taxation, intentional inflation, credit expansion, money supply injections and central planning all exacerbate income inequality, they do not alleviate it. Pikkety is a political economist (as is Krugman) and Zarlenga calls political economists the "Priesthood of the Bankers." Among the Priesthood I'll again list off Zarlenga's bullet points but this time I'll inject my own interpolation of their meaning in today's climate:

Ideas rule:

Here we mean academic political economists with no real world financial, market or business experience devise elegant theories which look good on a blackboard, will earn them Nobel Prizes and become ensconced into the prevailing orthodoxy of conventional economic thought. Governments can then utilize these theories (or self-serving adaptations of them) to justify monetary polices that enable them to live beyond their means or otherwise further their own interests and those of their cronies.


These policies are utterly backwards in that they posit what economic forces should do according to some model, instead of trying to understand what they actually do based on observed results. When you do unleash Nobel laureates with their theoretical constructs on the real world, you don't get "green shoots", you get LTCM.

Economists as propagandists.

Two words: Paul Krugman.

Economics degenerates from the scholastics

Even the untouchable pillar of Keynesianism is a bastardized caricature of what Keynes actually said, which was that governments could smooth out the business cycle by deficit spending during bust years by running surpluses during the boom years. In it's most basic form this just means saving for a rainy day. But governments don't do that, because (as people like Krugman opine) "the government doesn't have to pay it's bills". Thus, it's all deficit spending, all the time. The last US president to actually run a surplus and pay down debt was Eisenhower (the so-called Clinton era surpluses were a sleight-of-hand fiction). The last president to pay off the debt was Andrew Jackson.

Fostering a disdain for the lessons of history

You can look at almost any financial panic, especially over the last hundred years, and you'll see the same thing play out repeatedly.


For example, if you go back and look at the S&L crisis and the policy response to it, one is stricken with the similarities between then and now, how nothing was actually resolved in the policy response to S&L, in fact just the contrary, how bad behaviour and incompetence were rewarded instead of allowed to be punished via free enterprise rules of engagement.


The pattern is as follows:

  •     poor policy, credit expansion, government management of the economy (i.e. housing bubble) and insulation from consequences by special interests (bankers, etc) leads to a panic.
  •     government bails out bad actors at public expense
  •     massive wealth transfer from public to elites occurs
  •     free markets and runaway capitalism blamed
  •     additional regulations imposed restricts range of operations of non-elite players while enabling elite cronies to externalize losses
  •     additional controls over economy enacted (ZIRP, new regulations, etc)
  •     increased government debt (stimulus, etc)
  •     next wave crack-up boom induced

The cycle repeats each time ensuing bubble and subsequent meltdown increasing by an order of magnitude. Which brings us to Vincent LoCascio, probably the most under appreciated commentators on our monetary system of this era. If ever there was a pair of "must" read books about what really causes wealth inequality in our society it is his Special Privilege: How the Monetary Elite Benefit… At Your Expense, and The Monetary Elite vs Gold's Honest Discipline.

In Special Privilege,  a chapter entitled "The Recurring Nightmare" enumerates the serial financial panics of the 19th and early 20th centuries (to wit: The Panic of 1819, The Panic of 1837, The Panic of 1857, The Panic of 1873, The Panic of 1893, and the Panic of 1907, whose policy response led in a straight line to The Federal Reserve Act of 1913). LoCascio poses the question "Isn't There A Lesson Here?"

"The 19th century and early 20th century  panics were so uniformly accompanied by the liberal extension of credit for speculative purposes that any serious reviewer of these events could not possibly fail to hypothesize a likely causative relationship.


Little if any attention, however, was focused on the role the prior euphoria played in causing the resulting panic. Rather, attention was focused on the panics themselves and the virtually unanimous conclusion by those in position to bring about reform, was the great elasticity of currency would ameliorate, if not eliminate, the panics."

He went on to observe,

"During the 50 years of the National Banking System, currency had increased from roughly  $1 billion to $3 billion --or, by a factor of 3. Bank loans on the other hand, grew from roughly $0.5 billion to $13 billion--or by a factor of 25. This provides a rough numerical measure of the tendency (which continues to this day) that money creation has been tied to debt creation by banks."

LoCascio published Special Privilege in 2001 (he died in 2006), but large swaths of his work could easily be cut and pasted into the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis and no doubt, will be highly germane during the forthcoming, next crisis. The only difference being that after the next, inevitable (possibly imminent) wave of financial panic, it may be impossible to kick the can down the road yet another time. We may have finally, collectively come to the end of the line on "the great fiat monetization of everything" and be barreling toward the brick wall of unsustainability at the end of the runway.


This is what is so maddening about the irony of a book like Capital, chock full of fallacious data and erroneous conclusions makes Pikkety hotter than Justin Bieber, while brilliant historians such as LoCascio die in obscurity. The fact is that financial panic, followed by institutional wealth transfer (and confiscation) is systemically ingrained into what is called "conventional economic thought"

The big question around wealth inequality is this: why does wealth inequality increase as the distance from the nexus of political power increases? Why does wealth concentrate toward the centre? When asked this plainly, the answer becomes just as obvious: because the system is rigged that way.

Because that is wealth inequality in action. When looked at from this angle you are able to see the underlying flawed assumptions that are otherwise considered "out of scope."

Whether you don't believe in a classical gold standard (Zarlenga) or you do (LoCascio), whether you think bitcoin is viable or lunacy, where all these schools of thought intersect is at the point that finds private, fractional central banking a blight on civilization that leads to cronyism oligarchy between banksters, career politicians and corporate/kleptrocrat elites and this is the point that is most vociferously relegated out-of-scope in any kind of dialog around today's central, pressing issues of the time.

As LoCascio predicts,

"The ultimate crisis will occur when the situation is so thoroughly perverted that the defenders of the status quo can no longer resurrect confidence in the system."

What Pikkety has succeeded in is proving that we are not there yet. The propensity of the masses to rally behind this shows that confidence in the system is still long and strong. But what we are seeing are fissures in the logic - not only in books like Capital in the 21st Century but in entirely new and nonsensical economic schools of thought seemingly conjured out of thin air for the sole purpose of justifying and explaining away the otherwise unavoidable distortions and non-sequiturs of our economy (such as Modern Monetary Theory and Modern Monetary Realism - more on those in another post ).

People are still very willing to believe in Unicorn Economics, the emergence of crypto-currencies such as bitcoin point to a widening rejection of that, but it will likely not achieve critical mass until the wheels come off the current system altogether.


As I completed writing this essay, the ECB announced negative interest rates, in other words NIRP. This is sold to the public as a mechanism to spur bank lending to - again - stimulate the economy. What nobody asks is how the financial system can be so distorted, so perverted that policymakers can simultaneously implement negative interest rates while holding on to claims of legitimacy around their ability to "regulate" or "manage" the economy, or that the wider society is actually benefiting from these policies. If you think - and I know some otherwise highly intelligent people who do - that this is just some highly abstract financial smoke and mirrors that doesn't really mean much in the real world, remember where you read this first: when NIRP fails to stimulate lending, the next Big Idea in Unicorn Economics will be to target money velocity and put expiry dates on cash. It's the next logical step once you've entered the Twilight Zone as we have, and that's also what you get when a global monetary system based on perpetually expanding debt approaches the end of the runway. (Or as as Fiat Paper Money author Ralph T Foster put it,  "Reading history is a harmless pastime, reliving it is another matter.")

Comment viewing options

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

What we have today is what happens when sociopaths gain control.  Want survival of the fittest?  Want the strong to survive?  Want people who love Ayn Rand running the show?*  Corruption and cheating and self-dealing are in their nature.  They talk a good game.  But the game we get, is this one.

*Alan Greenspan comes to mind.

deflator's picture

global debt supercycle makes me hungry. lol good thing I cut up a wholr bag of potatoes in that soup

i made yesterday...

strannick's picture

Let them drink Kool Aid, Ill be buying gold

''You can avoid reality, but not the consequences of avoiding reality''

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Gold is about the only solution for little fishez who do not want to risk being killed in street demonstrations.

Fish Gone Bad's picture

I have been wondering when things will actually get "fucked up enough" to finally break.  My guess, and it is only a guess, is it will be quite a bit longer than anyone thinks.  War will spread,  people will get fatter, and the Kardashians will be on the rag mags for a long time. 


Oh regional Indian's picture

It's Gandhi, not Ghandi, FWIW (very little if you know the man).

And cronyism is the same, only now it's cloaked in technology.

So easy to rip off the world when you own THE GLOBAL CROSSING!

That is cronyism in the 21st century.

Who owns Global Crossing?

They own Data. The king...

Follow this story:

Other dataesque thoughts...

Terminus C's picture

The information economy.

Own the medium of information flow/storage, own the information, own the world.

Oh regional Indian's picture

Precisely Terminus.

Whatsapp for 20 billion worked for someone, for some reason.

Worthy of pondering outside of yelps of Bubble 10.0 and other sundry jokes...


Urban Redneck's picture

Is Karl W. B. Schwarz a disinformation agent or is he actually so stupid as to not see the problem with what he wrote?

"The Deutsche Boerse bought out a Luxembourg entity named Cedel International S.A., for societe anonym. That is sort of like an LLC but it is easy to conceal who the real owners are if proper steps are taken."

The problem with Clearstream has never been "ownership" per se, as opposed to the flow information about the flow of funds, or lack thereof.

Stock is a fools' errand. Look at the 12T money stock (M2) -- it is smaller than the US debt held by the public, infinite money creation by the banks is just as laughable as MMT. Follow the flow...

williambanzai7's picture

Maybe we should be talking barter.

The crony weasels seem to have hopelessly polluted the PM markets with pieces of toilet paper. And the CBs have all targeted gold for their ponzi machinations. No one has any idea how much gold is out there either. Its all smoke and mirrors. So the lack of transparency means the little guys still get killed.

Bro of the Sorrowful Figure's picture

i believe talking barter or gold gets you on BHO's sunday afternoon drone list and homeland security's terrorist list faster than you can say NDAA.

Took Red Pill's picture

Definitely, Bill. In addition we should all look into time trade groups in your area or start one if not available. "Time Trading is an organized exchange system through which members earn hours (time credits) for time spent helping other members. One hour of service earns one hour of someone else’s time, no matter what the service."

nidaar's picture

Bullshit. What makes an hour work of neurosurgeon equal to a pizza delivery. This will never work for the same reasons as the communism's failure.

Took Red Pill's picture

It doesn't necessarily work that way. You may choose or not choose to do something. Many may choose not to do their paid profession. For example, maybe someone needs help moving some furniture or in the garden. They post it on the site. You help them for an hour. That gives you an hour in your bank for someone to help you with something.

shouldvekilledthem's picture

Bitcoin is the only solution. You can only sit on physical PM and wait for the total fallout. Bitcoin can be used to bring change and stand up against the "system".

Wake up peasants! 

Dane Bramage's picture


Let them drink Kool Aid, Ill be buying gold

''You can avoid reality, but not the consequences of avoiding reality'' 


Damn skippy.  Why argue with idiots?  Actually, worse than idiots; doublethinkers!  Because you can't have capitalism without capital.  What could be further from capitalism than a government monopoly fiat-currency based economy?

Da Yooper's picture

Alan Greenspan is the epitamy  of evil


he & those who followed him


screwed the many


for the benefit of the 


few ( the bankers ) at great cost to the US public


I pray that God will judge them accordingly & may they rot in hell for all time

Fish Gone Bad's picture

If there is an afterlife, why would anyone think things would be any different than they are right now?  The bankers will have bought penthouse suites in hell, complete with supermodels and air conditioners until the end of time.

Terminus C's picture

He who sells his soul first sells it best.

Raging Debate's picture

Fish Gone Bad - I love the teaching of Christ for practical wisdom (love thy neighbor mitigates death toll of elite and commoner alike in longer term)

However, I equally love Bhudda and Paul for promoting logic and reasoning.

This article is one of the best I have ever seen in detail. Aristotle made these arguments many moons ago. He fled Athens to avoid being put to death by corrupt elites.

If you didn't win the vagina lottery your chances of success are low. Knowledge is power so that gives you better odds to prosper by educating oneself and the Internet is great to do so. But if you fuck too much with there rackets you die. Better to let them collapse and get out of there way.

Some Christians won't like what I say next. I believe Christ did not have to die by impalement. The empire as corrupt as it was argued against his death. Emporer Constanine adopted his teachings even if it was for political means and to his benefit!!! His teaching of pursue something else when the government robbery cycle was at its peak was bang on. But tipping over the money changers just got him dead real fast.

Tell me, where is the Roman empire now? Where are the Pharisees now? Ceasar respected the logic of Paul so much he invited him to his palace. But the Herods wife, a Jew had him put to death. Christ was a Jew with a great and simple longview about prospering by loving your neighbor as yourself. Put to death by his fellow Jews (btw I am 1/4 jewish).

Christ told them " I am just trying to spare you the prophecy of Daniel and being trampled on for the next 2,000 years. Daniel was the first quantum theorist. If you read it, you can take a calculator and use his math to the reformation of Israel to 1947. Ya, ya he was off by one year 3,500 years ago... The Jews in charge dont practice the concepts of the Torah, no different than why and how they went from a superpower to Daniels time in a couple hundred years when the Babylonians conquered them and Daniel made his quantum prediction of being trampled on for 2,000 years (and happened). You dumb fucks are repeating history. If you do not give back to your community locally or globally you eventually get and die too.
The answer to inequality is not intellectual, it is conceptual. During the 2,000 years of repression of Jews was other heinous oppressors so it is an illustration because the Jews have become a superpower again. Yes anglos rule governments as well but are subservient to the lender (creating money from nothing and stealing value).

I am illustrating the concept of failure to learn from history and strive to attempt (as we all are imperfect and fail) to "love they neighbor as oneself".
We think in 3D, a pyramid. We build literal ones, illustratives ones like food charts and inequality, create 3 branch governments like the USA etc. etc. 666 in Revelations are dimensions 6x6x6. It standa for a pyramid or monarchy. The answer to inequality is humility before one another. Love the orientals bowing to one another and concepts of Ying and Yang.

Sadly, we learn by pain more than anything else and government at the core learns last but these will relearn as well, the hard way.
I am not going to waste my life being Aristotle or Christ. I can learn from there caring nature or when to retreat but all lessons combined in science or philosophy tell me to get the hell out of the way and let it collapse, try and make an honest wage in-between because you make more interesting companions this way. Thank you for allowing me to share some conceptual thought. The issues and details in the thought pyramid beneath them are secondary and thirdly considerations. I love you all. My shit stinks too sometimes also :/)

litemine's picture

How is the Study of Economics a Science, when it is a study of political and historical effect from the Past? The FED Chairperson an Economist, thru QE-Infinity has changed the Matrix. I bet the shares of the Banks that Own the Fed have Increased exponentially for the Profits of the Elite. The profit (30%) for administering then has full Insider Trading Rights…….Audit, and then END the FED

People who abuse their position of Trust need to be accountable for Abuse of Power.

"During the 50 years of the National Banking System, currency had increased from roughly $1 billion to $3 billion --or, by a factor of 3. Bank loans on the other hand, grew from roughly $0.5 billion to $13 billion--or by a factor of 25. This provides a rough numerical measure of the tendency (which continues to this day) that money creation has been tied to debt creation by banks." Quote from article.

They may not believe in GOD. At least the one you do. People need to judge and pass sentence.......................Then follow the money trail and convict those that knowingly profited from these Crimes.

Oldwood's picture

Sociopaths always take control when control is given. Centralized power provides an irresistible lure for those who would seek to control using the excuse of saving or protecting us from ourselves, or at least those deemed to be a threat. We have never seen a larger, more controlling governance covering the entire planet. Wealth disparity as well as fear grows as a result of the corruption afforded those with unaccountable power, yet their answer is yet more power, more regulation, more surveillance, more TBTF.

The fittest will ALWAYS survive, so its about time we get our game up a bit and stop waiting for some higher power, be it God or Government, to save us. As long as we insist on pursuing the collectivist dream, we only weaken our resolve to retain our own personal strength. Can you not see the inherent risk of dependency? This all we have become. Absolutely dependent. Our very lives and livelihood are in these people's hands and any resistance is illegal. How can anyone ask for more of this?

LetThemEatRand's picture

They've already won, Oldwood, because people like you believe that the collective power of the people ("collectivism") is the problem as opposed to the solution.  The Founders of this country did not win because of some bullshit economic model.  They gathered the people together and formed a government of the People, for the People.  Sad that this idea is now considered some kind of communist threat.  I wonder who planted the seed that collective governance by elected representatives is the problem?

Oldwood's picture

There is a vast difference between gathering together for a common cause or objective and being FORCED to do so, especially when it is painfully obvious that our forced actions are not in our best interest, being constantly told that we must "sacrifice" for the greater good, or spread the wealth around like an oft quoted hero of some has said. Rand outright rejected the concept of sacrifice, especially for unknown persons and for unknown purposes.

The strength of collectivism is its voluntary nature. Once the collectivised power has been harnessed through fear, greed and propaganda, it becomes pure corruption. There is no alternantive but to minimize collectivism to it base voluntary core.

LetThemEatRand's picture

So you reject America and that for which it stands in favor of Rand, an author who spawned Greenspan?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Oldwood's picture

Really, that is your fall back position? The general welfare clause? Right, I guess they didn't print up the social security cards and food stamps and section 8 vouchers at the same time they were signing the constitution because they ran out of ink.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Sorry for the quote from the Constitution.  I guess that answers my question about what you reject.

Raging Debate's picture

LetthemEatRand - Our rulers have stated the constitution is just a piece of paper. The Founders knew and made statements that only a moral people can keep a Republic.

Bill Clinton is a rapist and murderer. But he is still revered by many to this day, although those know about the rape fetish (but don't cars) and not Arkanside or drug profiteering. I bet they still wouldnt care.

The founders also told us to expect revolution as they understood human nature. In this day and age revolutions are manipulated. You withdraw consent, play along a bit but limit productivity so at least you can have some happiness by other hobbies or interests outside of financial gains as corruption dwindles those or play them at there own game to attenpt to break financial gravity but plan to spend money on modern soldiers, lawyers and tax professionals to avoid robbery.

This batch from the 60's that rule and said "tune in and check out" are attempting to block even those exits. Family law as indirect tax has to be the worst policy in history I have ever seen perhaps outside of Mao's "smile you get punished" policy. Rand was a disciple of Aristotle. Greenspan did not follow there belief system in the end. Nor did Rand appear or fellowship with Greenspan when he became Fed chairmain.

The Republic known as United States is dead. Life will go on, it will restructure with pain for all but less so for elite. Look at Russia, 65% of the state Duma continued governing after the fall of the Soviet Union. Life has improved there (not fantasitically but better) and will improve here again also.

The only argument in my mind is the death toll in percentages before that happens. Meanwhile, I'll dance to the music stops and hedge best I can. I educate and do what I can, help the needy best I can.

The wheels on the bus go round and round...

goldsansstandard's picture

The general welfare was promoted by enumerating limited specific powers and reserving all others to the States and people.

That is the context.
The general welfare clause and interstate commerce clause are the pivot points to pry open all the limits in the remainder of the constitution ,not to mention the declaration of Independance.

Da Yooper's picture

A fair market is one thing


A rigged manipulated market is another & is pure evil


we have been taken advantage of by people who are pure evil & who the laws dont seem to apply.


The fittest dont survive


Those who are connected to the evil survive


Those who are dependent on the evil survive


The fittest go bankrupt



Fish Gone Bad's picture

Those who are connected and dependent to evil survive

and that my friend is your answer.  Either join their club, or don't play the game.  As their club is fairly exclusive, it is probably best to find one's own happiness.


Oldwood's picture

There have been those who did not see survival as their primary cause in life. Those that do are likely the most susceptible to your "pure evil".

LetThemEatRand's picture

Rand preached personal survival and selfish happiness as the only goals worth pursuing.  She died, and her legacy is ....

Oldwood's picture

Well, I don't know, but I'm not seeing a lot of "Objectivists" running things these days. Everything looks pretty much as she predicted it if you ask me.

The problem we have is that any of us can follow the logic of almost any "ism" out there. It always in the implementation of it that things start going badly. While I'm not an Objectivist, I see a lot of solid thought in it.

Abandoning our rational mind is suicide, by following any "theory" unproven, relying only on faith or hope.

I also believe that prosperity comes from only one source and that is productivity. If we pursue any theme that seeks to punish those who produce and reward those that do not, regardless of how warm and self satisfied it may make me personally, is destructive to the prosperity of the entire society.

But I'm not God and neither are you, so we will just have to set back and watch, I suppose. Unfortunately, regardless of outcome, there is enough propaganda in existence to sustain any theory, no matter how badly it fails. Thinking keynesian.

LetThemEatRand's picture

"But I'm not God and neither are you..."

We agree on something.  And if there is a God, I hope he does not measure everyone by their "productivity," and that he does not measure human beings by economic metrics.  Here's hoping there's more to life.

Disenchanted's picture

I'm pretty sure the 21st century "God" measures us by quarterly profits...

G-R-U-N-T's picture

LTER, Your unrestrained hatred of Ayn Rand is like a lover that has been dumped and it's residual effects has caused a caustic retort in the form of vengeance. Liberals have that nasty characteristic because they passionately believe government should be in control of the people even though government is presently destroying the economy and society along with it. The government run American welfare State controlled by the Nation destroying bureaucrats is exactly what Ayn Rand understood with clarity and with surgical precision pulled their covers like no other. 

Minds who cannot wrap around Ayn Rands brilliant objectivisim haven't the unbiased critical thinking skills to see reality, because they live in an alternate reality, an alternate reality built on lies and deceit. Look at the Obama Administration, they pursue a manufactured idea based on Marxism that has always, throughout history led to dictatorship, economic slavery, then destruction!

juangrande's picture

To me, "belief" in ANY and ALL systems is the fundamental flaw in human consciousness. Belief leads to or is the by-product of false self indentifying. Belief is, quite simply, the result of programming. People should endeavor to peel away the programming to see what is real. From there, we have a chance.

dizzyfingers's picture

"People should..."

People should mind their own business and not make sweeping statements about what other people should do.

A dictator says "You go and do...l"

A great leader says "Let's go and do..." And he or she also listens to, considers, and adopts good advice.

juangrande's picture

Isn't telling people they should mind their own business, telling  people what they should do?

Andy Lewis's picture

Now you're just being silly.

RiverRoad's picture


And what good does it do to put "expiry dates" on money people don't have???

Marco's picture

There's a risk to interdependency, but I kinda like having the internet and modern medicine ... lets try to keep it going till after I die, despite all the whining (my own included) I still like it better than a return to subsistence farming.

Wild Theories's picture

Cronyism is the opposite of competition of the fittest and survival of the strong.

More often than not you need weak uncompetitive line-toeing morons to maintain the status quo.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Not at all true.  The strongest and fittest have built this very model.  Much, much smarter than the old Kingdoms.  It cracks me up that so many here don't see that.    This is what you guys wanted.  And you are so entrenched in your philosophy that you think moar is better.

Wild Theories's picture

I think you and I are diverging on which stage we are in a crony system. You are stuck on step 1, I'm talking about the whole thing.

It's true the first cronies would be created by the strong to maintain their power and influence, but after the first generation, every generation afterwards becomes a little less capable than the previous one, as each generation would put in place one less competent than themselves so the new will always kowtow to the old and lick their ass to get there.


Cronyism is the antithesis of a meritocracy, the best and most capable can not rise to the top in a crony system, a crony candidate is never the best and most capable candidate.


There is also nothing special or complex about cronyism that requires a lot of smarts to 'set it up', even a retard knows how to pick someone who'll lick his ass and do as he says. It only requires a little motivation in the way of selfishness and greed by those in power and will occur naturally.

NidStyles's picture

We are on the fourth generation of bankers now. 

Par Contre's picture

Enough of this ZIRP and NIRP, it's time for a new acronym. I propose that the monetary policy of today should be known as Progressively Insane Monetary Policy.



Andy Lewis's picture

Yeah! Beyonce for Treasury Sec!