-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which legendary musicians or bands have you seen live?
Kieswetter is sitting with a massive problem
- Thread starter BusinessTech
- Start date
lexity
Honorary Master
Yes, this was not long before he died.
And he says he has 'long been in favor of abolishing it'. My emphasis.
Now, I don't doubt him being opposed to the Federal Reserve, itself. But he was not asked what do you think of the federal reserve. He was asked what do you think of the federal reserve board.
He then goes on to describe the performance of the board throughout the 20th century i.e. decisions made by it. Iow, it could have done a better job.
There was this "let's work with what we've got, side to him," when it came to this most destructive, centralized credit institution, that made it possible to fund endless wars of aggression in all parts of the world.
Now we are sitting with a Leviathan State, including a giant military industrial complex which neither the Left nor the Right can roll back..
I don't recall exactly where he said it but he did advocate for better performance of the Fed, in carrying out it's supposed mandate i.e. controlling inflation and keeping unemployment down. He participated in the central-planners framework, expecting them to take his advice.
That was his naivete.
Like I said, he was a giant in some of his work. The Free to Choose TV series won many people over to the free market argument, for example. His influence on university campuses, that were becoming hot-beds of Socialism, was also noteworthy. Some of those talks were devastating to Socialist, woolly-thinking uni-kids who knew nothing about markets. You can probably find some of them on the same YT channel.
So... respect to him for much of what he achieved including no doubt slowing down the destruction. But they drew him in, made him feel like he could change things permanently, which I think was a bit of a shame.
TL;DR
lexity
Honorary Master
Took me a minute and a half to read my reply.
Length of the video you posted.... 1 minute 54 seconds...
lexity
Honorary Master
Agree, except 'going nowhere' sounds like a non-disaster.
And don't be tempted to compare SA to so-called first world countries. I can think of 33 trillion reasons, the West's economic advice is not coming from real experts, and another 200+ million reasons not to put blind faith in the State.
It's the overall trajectory one has to recognize. Over the 30 year period, in this case. Not the day-to-day stuff of... will this one drain the swamp, or that one?
Velskoen
Expert Member
He is part of the problem. He will not bring down his enablers.
You're going off topic from my point. I don't want this to sperg in that direction. Thanks.
It wouldn't matter, because the previous 1000s of years of Chinese education would have brought China back ultimately from the Great Leap Forward. China's re-emergence, is it recovering from the shock of the mid 20th century and its consequences. Countries without such heritage may not be able to recover should such have happened and as said deal with more basic issues, such as how do we keep basic services running.
Pegging
Honorary Master
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Messages
- 26,751
- Reaction score
- 43,161
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/153221908-5bfc2b8c4cedfd0026c118f2.jpg)
What Is Monetarism? Theory, Formula, and Comparison to Keynesian Economics
Monetarism is a macroeconomic theory, which states that governments can foster economic stability by targeting the growth rate of the money supply.
Milton Friedman and Monetarism
Monetarism is closely associated with economist Milton Friedman, who argued, based on the quantity theory of money, that the government should keep the money supply fairly steady, expanding it slightly each year to allow for the natural growth of the economy. Due to the inflationary effects that can be brought about by the excessive expansion of the money supply, Friedman, who formulated the theory of monetarism, asserted that monetary policy should be done by targeting the growth rate of the money supply to maintain economic and price stability.In his book, A Monetary History of the United States 1867–1960, Friedman proposed a fixed growth rate called the K-percent rule, suggesting that money supply should grow at a constant annual rate tied to the growth of nominal gross domestic product (GDP) and be expressed as a fixed percentage per year. This way, the money supply will be expected to grow moderately, businesses will be able to anticipate the changes to the money supply every year and plan accordingly, the economy will grow at a steady rate, and inflation will be kept at low levels.
If you accept the premise that they control the supply then that's what must be done, instead they went the Keynesian way and printed like crazy.
Funny fact though is that Keynes knew what would happen, he just didn't care.
lexity
Honorary Master
He was a Eugenicist and a hater of middle-class thrift.
He stubbornly and nihilistically refused to confront concerns the average person had about the long-term effects of his(Keynes') actions.
"In the long run we're all dead" is his catchphrase.
lexity
Honorary Master
If your point was that the 20th century was a minor blip in China's history.... then ok. So?
The reason I pointed out to @saturnz the Rockerfeller quote, is that he conflates capitalism - where businesses rise and fall on their own merits - with crony-capitalism - where businesses rise due to State-protection from open competition, and get bailed out by the future generation tax-payer.
He conflates the 2. He thinks we live in a capitalist society because those who have cheated their way to the top have presented themselves as the epitome of capitalism and private enterprise, not because they are.
The poster shows they will say and do anything including legitimize the Mao regime, to get the control and dominance they seek.
the end result of capitalism is crony capitalism because there is nothing in the ideology that prevents monopolies
eventually the markets are privately owned and then the government along with the central bank
Took me a minute and a half to read my reply.
Length of the video you posted.... 1 minute 54 seconds...
You didn't need to watch the video, the title is self explanatory
lexity
Honorary Master
An ideology is not a moral agent. As such, it cannot prevent anything.
It cannot bring charges against criminals, or say no to tax-payer-funded bailouts, for example.
That's where you and I come in to the picture.
We are moral agents. We do have agency. Which simply means we have the decision-making capacity and responsibility to prosecute violators of privacy of person and property, and all the rights that stem from this.
The trouble is this merger, between Corporation and State, has done a marvelous job of manipulation on the unsuspecting individual. It has managed to convince you to relinquish individual decision-making responsibility.
It has done this through State education. It's called brainwashing, but even that term is susceptible to the manipulation because you are supposed to think of yourself primarily as being at the mercy of your brain i.e. you have no independent thought.
That's where it starts, and if you accept that presumption, you fall into the trap of relinquishing individual decision-making responsibility, and that will permit the State and Corporate alliance to grow at the expense of the individual's primacy.
Think through what you are saying....'privately owned' means that market can be entered into by a new competitor without the permission of an uninvited 3rd party.
Look around you, that's not the world you live in.
Everything is State-regulated in the world in which you live. Pretty much everything... whether directly regulated by this uninvited 3rd-party, or indirectly because nobody else trades without this permission and insists on seeing your State license before they will trade with you.
So, the problem is not that markets are privately owned, it's that they have become publicly controlled.
lexity
Honorary Master
Yes, it's self-explanatory... for everyone who conflates a label/title with an explanation.
Why doesn't youtube just specialize in titles.... imagine the savings they'd make on all that bandwidth.
lexity
Honorary Master
You infer a lot and disappear quickly when prompted to back up what you say.
You'd have to read it to find out it doesn't say much.
In any case is it any surprise those whinging about a paragraph or two being much to read, don't think it is worth it? Why would they when they don't have to be right or accurate in the conclusions they come to.
I mean, to them, what is the point of self-education, and working through the inconsistencies in your own world view?
To them, we live in a meritocracy, where those who dominate their industries are therefore deserving of the influence that have, and are worthy advisors to the State. Thanks to the ever vigilant State who has the best interests of individual consumers at heart, too.
can you show me where I had to back up what I had to say?