MD: With a proper MOE process government cannot sustain itself on counterfeiting. It must sustain itself like every other responsible trader (like you and me) does. That is by making trading promises and delivering as promised. So just looking at the title of this article, the writer tips his hand. He would not write an article about “Anti-Liver-and-Onions” or “Anti-Brussel-Sprouts” would he? Those are trader’s choices. If people don’t choose to trade for those items then traders who provide them are in a spot, aren’t they. So what is it about government that makes it “anti-able” in the eyes of this economist? Let’s see if an economist has a clue. I don’t hold high expectations of the value of reading this article.
MD: Right away it gets scary. He is getting his thinking published. He is part of the “propaganda” arm of government. I think he writes about government’s use of “force”. Propaganda is government’s go-to tool. It only resorts to force when the polls show the effectiveness of the propaganda is not sufficient. By my poll (only 17 out of 298 people I’ve personally polled know anything about WTC7 falling down), the propaganda … and suppression of information … is working just splendidly.
A slice:
A libertarian’s – a Jeffersonian’s – “anti-government” stance reflects mainly a strong presumption against using force to direct peaceful people’s affairs.
MD: Why not leave people to direct their own affairs? Why is a government solution to issues (which always proves to be the least effective choice) always proposed first to the exclusion of all others? In my space it wouldn’t be that way. Iterative secession.
The libertarian objects first and foremost not to particular policies of a large and constitutionally unconstrained government, but to its very existence.
MD: Two issues: What does “constitutionally constrained” mean when that document is blatantly flawed … note it has no buy/sell agreement? What is “government” when it is openly occupied by our enemies … witness the mysterious collapse of WTC7? And an issue probably not covered herein: why is any level of government involved in directing anything that the level above it can deal with … the individual being at the top. Virtually 100% of what every level of government deals with today can be handled at the level just above it.
Even if such a government were today to behave in no ways that the libertarian finds objectionable, he remains opposed to it, understanding that such power is destined to be abused.
MD: So he’s saying libertarians are opposed to the camel getting his head under the tent. I wonder if he gets into why the camels want into the tent in the first place. And whose camel is it?
Of course, the libertarian is indeed “anti” many specific government policies – tariffs, subsidies, minimum wages, occupational licensing, K-12 schools’ funding and operations. This “anti-government” stance reflects no prejudice against an ethnic group, no favoritism for a culture or way of life. It reflects prejudice only against using power to secure special privileges, favoritism only for maximum scope to live, work and play as individuals peacefully choose. It is, in short, a pro-individual-liberty policy.
MD: So if governments didn’t use power to do these things, libertarians would be ok with it? If you’re pro-individual-liberty, why is there any government at all? Why isn’t everyone “pro-individual-liberty”? And why must those of us who are have to be in the same space with those who think there is a place for government. Read the Federalist Papers and at the same time read the Anti-Federalist papers.
The founding children surmised that if the states were left as separate entities their differences would result in fighting and wars. So their solution was to force them into the same space instead of letting them have their separate spaces in which to go about their separate ways. Now really? What kind of thinking is that???
Iterative secession. We took the wrong fork in the road when we formed the union. We must go back and try the other fork. This one has proven itself not to work … and globalization initiatives are proving the problem to be chronic.
MD: All economists confuse the “proper” Medium of Exchange” process with some kind of manipulation of the economy. That’s just what they think their job is … their focus is … their expertise is … their destiny is. And they are all flat out wrong.
Money simply enables traders to effect their trading promises over time and space. Trading “is” the economy and trading over time and space is a huge part of trading (simple barter exchange in the here-and-now being the rest … unless you consider government counterfeiting) … and it is the only instance where money is created. Money is just the record of these in-process trading promises. It doesn’t exist before the promise nor after delivery for any instance of a trading promise spanning time and space. Thus, it cannot and will not inflate or deflate. And it is always in free supply. No economist needed!
If a trader (and we are all traders … with different levels of responsible behavior) can see clear to delivering on a promise over time and space, he does so of his own volition. He is free to create money to carry out his promise. If he fails (defaults), the orphaned money is reclaimed immediately by an interest collection of like amount.
Manipulation of the money process is “always” counterproductive. It should never be allowed … and with a “proper” MOE process, it cannot be accommodated … so “is” never allowed. Let’s see what kind of manipulation is being studied in this instance.
MD: Georg Mason University is a “hotbed” for Mises Monkery. It is kind of the USA abby for the religion.
In this article, Jayme explains the timing during the 19th century of U.S. states modernizing their property law – specifically, modernizing this law to enable married women to own, use, and alienate property no differently than could men and unmarried women. This timing, Jayme shows, is explained by the intensity with which state leaders wished to increase their states’ populations. A state whose leaders could personally enjoy some significant gains if that state’s population increased was more likely to modernize its property law than a state whose leaders stood to gain less from a population increase. (My summary here of Jayme’s thesis and of her principal finding do not do justice to her paper. Do read it yourself. It’s excellent.)
MD: The state (and the money changers that institute it) are notorious for co-opting the trading process … for their own self interest. In trading there is no gender. It is human specific in the animal kingdom, but other than that, all traders are equal (until the money changers … and the states … and the leaders they institute dictate otherwise).
One of the passages in Jayme’s paper that I found to be especially interesting and germane is the following on pages 302-303:
“[O]ne of the practices first implemented by [Massachusetts textile-mill owner Francis Cabot] Lowell and later copied by other industrialists was the active recruitment of young women. Lowell would pay recruiters to go out into the rural areas of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont to find female workers…. The model developed by Lowell came to be copied by aspiring industrialists across the Northeast, and beyond.”
MD: And if he could have recruited dogs or pigs or horses to be productive in his mills he would have done that. When you need to expand your labor force, you pull out all the stops. When you have the luxury of picking and choosing your labor force, you impose all the stops you think are appropriate. And it seems to be a male/female thing. Women creating enterprises have a tendency to employ women over men. And it is a race thing. Proprietors from India operating convenience stores seem to exclusively use Indians to run their stores. This isn’t rocket science. It’s about ease and predictability of control.
More than 150 years ago – when transportation and communication were primitive by the standards of the early 21st century – competition nevertheless drove industrialists to spend significant resources to recruit, from distant places, low-skilled workers. If profit-hungry industrialists went to such lengths in mid-19th-century America to locate and hire workers from jobs (then, mostly on farms) that paid those workers less than they could earn working for the recruiting industrialists, what sound reason is there to suppose that employers of low-skilled workers in America today generally possess anything that can, without laughing, be called “monopsony power” of such workers? Answer: none.
MD: But that’s only half the story. Those workers left the farms because the industrialists offered them a better life than they had on the farm. But most of the industrial managers didn’t have to be scrupulous … so they were not scrupulous. Once they had control of those transplanted workers, they took advantage of them … because they could. That just seems to be human nature. The farmers did the same thing with their hired hands (in some cases making them total slaves).
Those who assert the existence of such monopsony power do so either because they mistakenly believe that such power exists whenever any employer faces a supply of labor that is less than perfectly elastic (that is, whenever an employer would quickly lose all of his workers of a given sort if that employer cut the pay of those workers by as little as one cent per hour), or because they ignore the active efforts of employers to find and recruit low-skilled workers.
MD: Well duh! That’s called a mature market. The grocery business has been running on razor thin margins for decades … as has the oil business.
Low-skilled worker Jones currently in job X need not himself have much gumption or stomach for actively searching out new and better employment if employers offering better-paying jobs Y and Z take steps actively to recruit Jones and other such workers. And employers have every incentive to do such recruiting if and when there are pools of workers who are currently paid less than the value of those workers’ marginal products were those workers instead employed by the recruiting employers.
MD: When it comes to workers … and also to money, the HUL (Hour of Unskilled Labor) becomes the proper unit of measure. It never changes over time and space. It always trades for the same size hole in the ground.
And when it comes to labor, that’s as low as the scale goes … it doesn’t really ever become less than unskilled (unless you consider the case where they hire the handicapped … and supplement their lower than unskilled worth with government subsidies). Once you reach the HUL lower limit (or force it with something like a minimum wage adjustment), you move into the realm of the robot. Automation removes the need for human labor in that task altogether.
Economists seem to want to turn that which is natural into something they can manipulate … to make it rocket science. Interestingly, economists, like artists (excepting a tiny number of rock stars) work outside the domain of supply and demand. They cannot command the prices they charge for their services without government and corporate subsidies. They just aren’t needed in society. Unfortunately, when they are engaged, they become complete counterproductive and manipulative pests. They are all pulling in different directions at the same time … with greater and greater diligence and noise. Show any science that is pulling in all possible different directions as is the claimed science of economics … and politics for that matter. They are not science.
MD: Hmmm. “A Non-Traditional Perspective” … this from the guy who will not let my posts pass his moderation … because they are “unorthodox”. Go figure.
My creation of this website and blog at least partially resulted from his (and other goldbugs and Mises Monks) defensive maneuvers.
Let’s see what pearls of wisdom his non-traditional perspective brings us. We certainly won’t expect to be disappointed when he links his wisdom to an event that is mathematically predictable over the whole span of time we have had the math … and into the foreseeable future.
The eclipse of the sun occurs today. The silver moon covers the golden sun, plunging a small portion of the United States into darkness for a few minutes. Perhaps it is time to do a sanity check.
“According to a statement from Western United Dairymen CEO, Anja Raudabaugh, California’s Air Resources Board wants to regulate animal methane emissions even though it admits there is no known method for achieving the type of reduction sought by SB 1383.”
(Legislation to regulate cow and sheep flatulence – how charming!)
MD: We need to regulate those people’s exhaling. After all, it is CO2 … that deadly greenhouse gas. It can be done by inhibiting their inhaling. Enter SB 1383A stage left.
A new proposal: SB-219 blasts a deeper hole into common sense regarding the use of pronouns, gender choice, gender identity, bathrooms, transgender and more. What will be considered “normal” in five years on the left coast?
MD: Hopefully it will be sovereignty. But that’s much too much to even dream for.
Now in California! Perhaps coming to your state soon?
MD: If we’re talking about secession, I sure hope so.
Thanks to the Federal Reserve policies, commercial fractional reserve banking and U.S. government spending, prices have risen for decades.
MD: Fractional reserve banking hasn’t cause that. That’s just enabled the money changers to leverage their self given privilege by 10x … making them become capitalists in just two years and allowing them to then take “their” money off the table … and in 30 years, multiply what they let ride by 12,000 times. No … the price changes caused by the unbalance between supply and demand for the money itself comes straight from the government … their continual rollovers which are defaults not met by interest collections of like amount. It’s called counterfeiting. All the taxes go to the money changers in the form of tribute (interest) they demand … for doing absolutely nothing! But then, they instituted the government didn’t they. What should we expect?
However we are assured there is almost no consumer price inflation.
MD: There can’t be if you’re going to have COLA’s in your pension formulas. That’s suicide when you can’t stop the counterfeiting. The only thing you can resort to is the “thumb on the scale” trick .. and that’s exactly what they’re doing. Based on my SS check year over year, inflation has been 0.27%. Based on the cost of my rib eye steaks, it’s been about 27%.
One of the mandates of the Fed is “stable prices.” Hmmmm!
MD: And of course we here at MD know that a “proper” MOE process employees cares nothing about prices, employment, balance of trade, or anything else. It has no monetary policy. It has no reserves. It functions just like the over-speed governor on your lawnmower … through negative feedback correction (mitigated defaults immediately with interest collections of like amount). It is totally objective and can’t be manipulated at all.
Socialism:
Global warming: Do you think the politicians would have supported the global warming story if they could not tax greenhouse gases? The worry in the 1970s was global cooling. That story died because there is no way to tax the global cooling story or make a profit from it.
MD: No. That’s also why marijuana will soon become the national flower.
****************************************
The reality that is worth understanding:
Time for a sanity check. Gold or paper? Results or promises? Face reality or blame Russia?
Gary Christenson
MD: Actually, a pretty good effort this time by the clueless Gary Christenson.
MD: Notice how the Mises Monks never just cite an article and not its author. As in this case, there is always hyperbole … e.g. Paul Hayne’s “insightful” article. This is a Mises Monk marker.
Marxists have long complained that conventional economic analysis takes for granted the existing system of property rights. The charge is fundamentally correct.
MD: Let’s see if he exposes the alternative to this? Hint: No he doesn’t.
Am I likely to paint a house that isn’t mine? Am I likely to build a house on property that isn’t mine?
Offers to supply goods and efforts to purchase goods always depend upon people’s expectations of what they can and may do under specific contemplated circumstances. What a person may do expresses, in the broadest sense, that person’s property rights.
MD: Remember … a right is a defended claim. Here we have an implicit claim and no defense suggested. Do we really think we have a right being talked about here?
In order to predict, explain, or even talk intelligibly about those patterns and instances of social interaction that we call “the economy,” we must begin with people’s expectations, that is, their property rights.
MD: Why do they see the economy as a “social” interaction? If everything was an automat, would it still be a social economy? An economy is about trade. There is nothing social about trade in most cases. The purpose of advertising is to socialize it … but that’s not an attribute … it’s just a tactic
DBx: To avoid possible misunderstanding, I would have slightly reworded the final sentence of this quotation to read: “In order to predict, explain, or even talk intelligibly about those patterns and instances of social interaction that we call “the economy,” we must begin with people’s legitimate expectations – namely, those expectations that are widely shared and agreed to throughout the community – that is, their property rights.”
MD: Ah … now you talk about a great Misesian improvement. Add more words and say even less.
Heyne’s point is profound and important. Obviously, we cannot possibly distinguish illegitimate coercion against others from the legitimate exercise or defense of one’s rights until we know in sufficient detail the property-rights arrangement.
MD: Which will be found in a spaghetti of conflicting laws, rather than a simple statement of principle … like the golden rule.
If I break the window of a house at 123 Elm St. and then enter, you cannot know from this physical act if I am burgling the house (and hence, violating someone’s property right) or entering the house with the permission of the homeowner (namely, in this example, myself who locked myself out of this house that I own).
What is less obvious, but no less important, is the fact that property rights boil down to shared expectations.
MD: And of course “principles” are shared expectations. Laws are not.
In modern America (as in most modern societies) ownership of a house includes the widely shared expectation that in all but extreme circumstances – for example, when the house is engulfed in fire – the right to decide who may enter the house is reserved to the homeowner. Ultimately, this right rests on widely shared expectations. If I, a modern American, move to some community in which the widely shared expectation is that anyone who wishes may enter unannounced into any house in that community, with or without the permission of the owner or occupants, and by whatever means, then no right of mine is violated if some stranger breaks into my house.
MD: And can we picture any collection of people who would see this behavior as adhering to the golden rule? Actually we can. Most utopian societal communal failures see things this way.
Expectations, being what they are, can be affected by the formal legal and legislative codes, but expectations can also diverge from these codes.
MD: Which makes those codes pretty worthless, doesn’t it … especially when we get 40,000+ new ones every year.
(An example of such a divergence is the fact that in some U.S. states – I think, for instance, in Massachusetts – it remains an ‘on-the-books’ criminal offense for two adults who aren’t married to each other to have consensual sex with each other. Yet community expectations now no longer regard such activities to be unlawful.) Expectations change more frequently (especially in open societies) than does the formal law and the legislative codes, and expectations are always more nuanced and ‘granular’ than articulated legal rules or legislative commands can possibly be.
MD: But if were about principles rather than laws, the golden rule principle would easily address this … i.e. it’s only the business of the two people involved.
At bottom, a society’s laws are its widely shared expectations about how individuals may and may not act toward each others’ persons and toward the material things, as well as the symbols and markers, that individuals possess and use as they conduct their affairs both individually and in groups.
MD: A misstatement. Its principles, not its laws, are the widely shared expectations. Its laws are a hopelessly flawed attempt to nail down the jello which is those principles. As I’ve stated before, it would take an unlimited number of laws to nail down the principle of the golden rule.
(By the way, do watch the 1997 movie, The Castle.)
MD: Anyone who has read Ludwig von Mises has found him to just largely be a double talker. He goes on and on and on bouncing off the walls, losing sight of his subject, and just rambling. And when he does assert something, it makes no sense at all. It’s like a fractel … or pealing an onion. You can keep dissecting it, but as you do you just keep seeing the same thing … and if your fortunate it ends like an onion pealing exercise … with nothing. If you’re not fortunate it goes on without end … and becomes the Mises Monks’ religion
This is particularly evident when his subject is (or is thought to be) money. He goes into all kinds of nonsense about prices and what motivates people to trade … and then to trade again (the margins). And none of it has anything to do with money … what it is … why it is … and how it is.
As I read this “comment of the day” I’m left with the same feeling … but this time the subject is politics … whatever that is. What do you think?
Politics that is confined to a few and well-defined tasks cannot be seriously predatory.
The American founders seemed to recognize this simple truth. Modern political scholars do not.
MD: I read it over and over and over … and it says nothing … absolutely nothing! Maybe we need more context. In the case of Mises, we never do. More context never helps.
MD: We here at Money Delusions have strong opinions on government (it is an admission of failure of principles and cooperation). The responsibility for a thing called Monetary Policy is immediately claimed by governments once they are instituted by the money changers to have just that power … to manipulate money and thus control trade … to enable their farming operation which they call the “business cycle”.
As a tactic, governments have on-going propaganda campaigns. They are like religions in that respect. They just last as long as religions … and are more numerous. Part of that propaganda campaign is to elevate their operatives to super-human status. This is almost always done posthumously. And we see the technique on a daily basis at Cafe Hayek as these Mises Monks try to protect the sainthood of their operatives. Boudreaux is in the process currently of securing sainthood for an operative named Jim Baldwin (whose confusions Boudreaux shares and wants to have immortalized).
Let’s review this article to see if they can see the delusions involved … and what the principle should be.
Jeff Miron on Statues
by Don Boudreaux on August 19, 2017
in Current Affairs
I post in full – and I agree in full:
Why should a city, state, or federal government put statues in public parks?
MD: Consider the principle of “all” government. Government is the last resort for dealing with issues that no level of cooperation above it can deal with itself … at the top being the individual. Government is stark evidence of cooperation’s failure to deal with the issue … i.e. problem still looking for a proper solution.
Take something as simple as recording of deeds and other legal documents. This is the role of the county clerk. With their green eye shades they maintain the books of indexes into boxes on top of boxes full of contract documents retained for public inspection. It is the process they have for facilitating “transparency” to protect claims. The principle here is that if everyone can see the claim at any time … and for all time, then that in and of itself with defend the claim. And this is largely true. Unfortunately government has been an inept way of addressing this need. Countless such records have predictably been destroyed with the inevitable fire and water destruction of courthouses.
The government solution has failed from the get-go. In the particular case of “real property”, a private solution is found in the invention of “title insurance”. Here, a private industry has relegated the role of the county clerk as the first step (a public step) in a private process (title company real property record search). And in that process, the “transparency” principle is not even obtained. The title company’s records are not open to the public. It’s not a very cooperative solution is it!
When you see a government solution addressing any issue, you know implicitly that the issue is still not being addressed properly. On inspection you will find that “all” government involvement can be eliminated by resorting to principles rather than laws. Laws are just an attempt to nail down the jello of misunderstood issues that are easily handled with principles and transparency … the most obvious one being the golden rule. As a thought experiment, think of the number of laws you need to nail down the principle of the golden rule. Hint: Infinite … and with 40,000+ new laws every year, they are crowding that the estimate … and that is a trait of all valid principles … the number of laws required to nail them down approaches infinity.
So back to the question: “Why should a city, state, or federal government put statues in public parks? “.
What’s the principle? First comes “what is it a statue of?”. If it’s of a duck or an elk, it’s no big deal. But in most cases it is of a person. And the purpose of that statue is for the memory of that person to live after their death. And it almost never works. In less than a generation, the significance of the person depicted in the statue is forgotten totally … all that is left, as a crutch, is the plaque.
The “real” purpose is give credibility to the people who share that person’s belief. It is to get people working for (or members of the same club as) the statue builder to think that if they behave, work for less than they’re worth, exhibit blind loyalty, etc., they too will be immortalized in marble or bronze. It is an attempt by the organization building the statue to gain “stature” for that organization. It’s just that simple. It’s a tactic.
Most statues are of government workers. Most government buildings are named after government workers. Many streets are named after government workers. And who are the least capable workers among us … and make the biggest messes of the biggest things? Right … government workers. So go figure.
Doing so addresses no plausible market failure, while using taxpayers funds and, as demonstrated tragically over the past few weeks, generates controversy, polarization, and violence. Thus governments should take down all statues, regardless of their political implications.
MD: First, most of these statues are not constructed with taxpayers funds. But they are placed on “so-called” public property. Now that we know the principle involved … giving recognition to one to garner loyalty and discipline of many, we see that the statues should never have gone up as a public symbol at all … and they are just one form of recognition and sainthood that is unprincipled … it is a tactic of a faction.
But taking them down makes a larger public statement than the statues themselves. That statement is that in an instant of time, one cooperative collection of people can disassemble what another cooperative collection of people constructed years, decades, even centuries before. For sure, they shouldn’t be able to do that more capriciously than the original initiative was done.
And what do you do when the statue was constructed privately on private property and then given over to the public? A principle should be adopted going forward that self recognition has no place in government and should not be tolerated moving forward. Of course, not tolerating government at all going forward nips that issue in the bud doesn’t it.
This is not “erasing” history but instead leaving it where it belongs, in the hands of private actors and mechanisms.
MD: Putting up statues is the first step in “distorting” history. It is a tactic … just like writing a biography … or worse, an auto-biography. The principle is that such self-aggrandizement requires no public support and should not get public support.
Historians, textbook authors, universities, learned societies, the History Channel, and many other individuals and organizations can all present their own views of history and battle for the hearts and minds of the public.
MD: All those sources just enumerated are instances of “historic revision”. It is an expected principle and by the golden rule should not be inhibited … but it should not be publicly purveyed either! In most cases it is a symbol of one government prevailing over another government … when neither government should have been allowed to exist in the first place.
Government statues are government putting its thumb on the scale, which is one step down the slippery slope of thought control.
MD: It is a tactic … and one that should be eschewed … as should be government. Look for another solution when government is proposed to deal with a cooperative issue. Such proposals should be viewed as “dead on arrival”
MD: At Money Delusions, we have no delusions about money at all. And its our experience with money delusions propagated by others that gives us the skill to identify delusions in other areas. This article is just such an instance. Why do people tolerate genocide and poverty? And how do you say Cambodians beat it? How did Pol Pot come to be anyway? How do people become subjected to that nonsense when they just want to be left alone? Let’s see what we will see.
Not to spoil the ending … but it’s not by leaving these people alone … it’s by indoctrinating them differently. My god is better than your god. Sheeeeessssshhhhh
MD: Every time I see a statement like this I test it with “who’s the runner up?”. But then, what “kind” other than “man kind” is even in the running? What a great attention grabber that line is! But “modern” … that seals it.
No, that isn’t some lofty but empty phrase about humanity. This guy’s name is actually Man Kind. He runs a program in Cambodia that does more than educate.
MD: Caught me! Did you know if I tried to tell Facebook I was enrolling under the name Man Kind it would refuse me? It would refuse you too. But Facebook is a higher authority. I wonder if this guy is enrolled.
The schooling instills the drive to do something meaningful. The education empowers youth to take ownership of their life circumstances. If they don’t like the situation into which they were born, Man Kind will help them realize they can change it.
MD: All it should really do is teach the fundamentals necessary to learn. Learn to read … then write and spell … to do math. In short … learn to learn and learn to want to learn. That’s it. Then sit down and read the encyclopedias. You’ll get 10x what public education will give you (except putting prophylactics on bananas) in 1/3rd of the time. Wikipedia is your friend.
In the rural communities of Cambodia, social mobility isn’t at the forefront of many people’s minds. There are few opportunities to seize, particularly without access to meaningful education.
MD: Why should social mobility be on anyone’s minds. Why should there be anywhere to mobile to? Because the money changers have dictated it. It’s part of their farming operation … their farm system.
More often than not, hardworking rural families are resigned to their socioeconomic foothold. Despite this sad reality, there are individuals hard at work to raise their communities beyond their modest means.
MD: And more often than not, those chasing the brass ring finally settle down to a rural setting … with no socioeconomic drive at all. Go figure!
As you read this, there works a small group of industrious Cambodians who are improving their community. The Human-Resource Development and Language Foundation (HDLF) is a local grassroots NGO. They teach English and IT classes while incorporating motivational and character-building exercises.
MD: Foundations and NGOs … contaminating a theater near you.
Man Kind is the local community member who leads the organization. Their methods educate the local community in a practical way. They also provide opportunities for higher learning and employment, all at a minimal cost to clients.
There is climbing demand for English classes, especially in these rural areas, but a severe lack of investment. As of 2014 the Cambodian government spends 1.9% of its GDP on education. There is a shortage of teachers, and most split their time between teaching at public institutions and private schools.
MD: Why English? The Brits are the most corrupt society the world has ever experienced (Israel being a close second). What if the NGO went to London and gave of themselves to teach the Brits Cambodian?
They can’t sustain themselves on a public teacher’s salary alone. Most rural areas can’t readily offer the opportunity for a secondary income. The result is that most teachers do not just prefer, but need to work in urban areas to continue providing their valuable service.
MD: History is replete with biographies of great men and women who grew up on the desolate Great Plains of the USA … and attended single room school houses with one teacher for all grades.
How Did We Get Here?
There are several reasons for Cambodia’s severe lack of development. It would be remiss not to mention the brutal communist rule of the Khmer Rouge during the mid to late seventies. Pol Pot, wanted to fundamentally restructure Cambodia. He ushered in a collectivized “utopian” agrarian society in the mid to late 1970s.
The Khmer Rouge deported all foreign nationals and ordered a mass exodus from all cities. They pushed the population into the countryside. They abolished money, private property, and executed anyone who was a perceived threat to the state.
MD: So how did they get the power and leverage to do that?
This largely included intellectuals, politicians, doctors, and teachers. The Khmer Rouge even considered eyeglasses a sign of former oppression.
The Khmer Rouge starved the population as they forced them to do laborious farm work under harsh conditions. Their utopian dream turned into a genocide. It wasn’t until the party collapsed, and the Vietnamese occupied Cambodia, that the madness subsided.
MD: Something has to be left out of this story. What attracted the Khmer Rouge to the Khmer Rouge in the first place? They must have had some competitive solution to a wide spread problem at the time to pull this off. What was it? Was capitalism and empire building stealing them blind? That is “usually” the case … and the writers of this kind of propaganda leave that part out.
Yet still, the atrocities continued well into Vietnam’s occupation. Between 1.7 and 2 million people died, roughly a quarter of the population at the time. Nearly an entire generation was eradicated, and the culture all but torn from its roots. Cambodia needed to begin its development efforts anew.
MD: Again, how do you get some people to turn on others like that. How do you completely eradicate the principle of the golden rule … and why would you want to do that?
A Reason To Move On
MD: Every time I read a phrase like that, it tells me it’s a time for “revenge”; that revenge is justified and imminent; and the perps are on the ropes.
This is where HDLF provides some genuine hope.
MD: Hope for whom? The perps?
The NGO incorporates Dr. Madenjit Singh’s internationally recognized ‘Science of Language’ holistic training program.
MD: Any time you see this kind of hyperbole, their credentials are shallow to non-existent. Educators use such rhetoric … because they have no basis in fact to fall back on. They are totally incestuous.
During the day, local teachers volunteer to teach basic English to primary school students. In the evening, they go over more advanced courses with teenage students, who attend these classes after their traditional education in a public school. These intermediate students learn by reading stories and speaking about motivational topics.
MD: What? After their public school education? Well then eliminate the public school education. Is this like the bible school I had to go to as a kid for indoctrination?
The main idea is to teach these kids how to identify their habits, goals, aspirations, and inspiration. They do this in English, and stand up to present their own understanding of these stories to the whole class. They focus on identifying negativity in their lives and how to overcome a fatalistic mindset.This improves their Englishs
MD: Again, why English. That makes as much sense as teaching them Yiddish!
This improves their English comprehension, but also shifts their fundamental view of the world. It may not sound conventional by western standards. But it can provide life changing empowerment to students who never understood the individual’s ability to improve their own life.
MD: Ah … “shifts their view of the world”. This is brainwashing … plain and simple … in the open as if it was respectable. By a people (these NGOs) who have never known what money is and to this very day think there is such a thing as democracy with more than 50 people involved. This is BS … Beyond Silly. Maybe these people need to go back and read the history of our indoctrination of the indigenous US people. It’s a pitiful piece of history it is … with an even more pitiful current result.
Students who are faithful to this program emit a palpable sense of confidence. Teachers, as well as the international volunteers, feel the change.
MD: Like Clinton “felt your pain”?
“The energy here is very powerful,” says Program Director Juan Antuna Ros. “The moment you enter the school, you’re surrounded by all this eagerness to learn. It’s infectious… new students see the older students speaking English comfortably with international volunteers and that motivates them to keep studying and build up their confidence.”
MD: What? Why? Why doesn’t that eagerness exist in the public schools? What kind of coolade are they giving these kids?
To break the cycle of poverty, the key is to make adults and children alike realize that the cycle does not have to apply to them. They harbor a powerful freedom that waits to be realized.
MD: If you want to break the cycle, break the reproductive cycle. I would like to break the reproductive cycle of the elite in the USA (and the tribe that predominates it). Maybe I can form an NGO to get that done. It’s easy to illustrate and document the un-level playing field they have forced the rest of us on to.
“Someone who’s not educated is basically limited. It’s almost as if they’re walking through life with a blindfold on. They’re easily led astray, used and manipulated for other people’s agenda, usually people with a better education and greater access to resources.”
MD: Tell that to Gene Amdahl, or Philo Farnsworth … or Ezra Pound!
The curriculum implements this holistic perspective shift by asking students very subjective questions about their personal mentalities. This model demands a reader’s interactivity. There is no memorizing vocabulary by rote repetition. The students here must be active in analyzing their own personal lives using English. In this way, their English lessons don’t just cover the basics of the language, but the framework for their own personal success.
MD: Brainwashing … 101. Same thing other practitioners engage in. Plus the others teach a skill … making bomb vests that fit properly and comfortably.
Consider the implications. Let’s imagine you spend your days helping your family on the farm. You do manual labor using the same age-old methods passed down through the generations. Your neighbors, friends, and community all do the same thing, all without any opportunity or reason to improve their situation.
MD: Right. Join our society and you could become part of an entire new generation with large thumbs … from playing games on their iPads; totally sexually confused; fearing global warming and their own shadows; and incapable of changing a tire.
Then, all of a sudden, you begin to study a language, which helps you understand that you are the master of your own destiny. A door has been opened. To walk through, you must keep learning and engage in the principles you’re studying. Incorporating this life-changing and transmittable enthusiasm is what keeps this school running.
MD: And you no longer have a chance of being the master of the destiny you are leaving. And since there will be no-one there to protect a claim to that destiny, it will flow to these wonderful people teaching you this wonderful new language … the most clumsy language ever evolved by man … beginning with roots among the most treacherous empire builders ever experienced by mankind. What’s not to love here. If you want to gain some perspective, read the contemporaneous Anti-Federalist Papers (written by farmers who had a clue) in lock step with your reading of the Federalist Papers (written by the money changers who now enslave you by taking 3/4ths of the fruits of your labor … you the most free of all the people ever on the globe.) I’d say “give me a break” … but I make my own breaks. You should try it.
Where The Road Leads
Education alone is not the answer to a region defined by poverty. The ultimate goal is being able to provide tangible opportunities to a better-educated community. HDLF has recently teamed up with the Malaysian government’s Volunteering for International Professionals (VIP) Fellowship Programme.
MD: What makes these people poor? At the beginning of the formation of the USA very few had education (and those that did created the mess we know as the United States and its unbelievably flawed Constitution … that doesn’t even include a buy/sell agreement). These people weren’t any poorer or richer than the Cambodians … but most of the educated ones sure are (more poor) … even those perpetually reaching for the brass rings. They are the most impoverished of all.
The partnership aims to provide a 4-month fellowship for international professionals to apply their expertise in a local context. The goal here is to create career pathways and provide support services that allow graduates to access relevant job opportunities and build a meaningful career with English as the foundation.
MD: Follow the money.
HDLF also has mechanisms for trainees to become teachers. In fact, one of its trainees actually taught English to his own childhood teacher. Students see the clear and evident trajectory that their studies materialize. The teachers are the perfect examples, as they seek more than just a paycheck. They realize that the path to a brighter future is a delicate opportunity. If they can provide the necessary skill set, these kids will excel in their higher learning and get a decent job to provide for themselves and their families.
Right now, HDLF is building a new school down the road from its current location. The classes are in such high demand that the students for the new school are already being instructed in a temporary learning center near the construction site. With 3 classrooms and an IT center underway, the future looks bright for this NGO.
This large undertaking has opened the door for international volunteers to come and be a part of this good cause. Their presence has helped expedite the construction while keeping costs low. It provides an opportunity for the students to learn and talk with native English speakers.
Each day that passes is another day closer to building Man Kind’s new facility for higher learning.
“My great grandparents, my grandparents, my parents, all of them were farmers. But now, I can start to change the story of my life. So I ask my students, if I can do it, why can’t you?”
MD: Is that an open insult to farmers? I guarantee you, if we ever manage iterative secession (and I certainly hope we do), I don’t want you in my space. I would much rather have these farmers in my space.
His students regularly attend his classes, so many that there is almost a lack of seats. Despite the sweltering heat or the torrential rain, they attend class and study with fervor and intention.
“I work long hours, but I never feel tired, because I can see the smiling faces of our kids. They begin to feel confidence. They tell themselves, ‘yes, I can do it, I can learn. I can be anybody I want.’ That’s the best feeling of my life.”
MD: I am a Goldmoney sucker. Rather than go to the pawn shops and gold shops to get my gold, I went to Goldmoney. That was back in the day when I was sure the “train was finally leaving the station”. Gold against the dollar was going up very quickly … as was silver.
To test the wisdom of what I had done, I tried to get physical gold from them. The process was slow and expensive. My turn-around costs exceeded 10% … and that’s not including the import duty I had to pay. So all but one ounce still rests with them. I really don’t ever expect to see it again. When we have a reset, there will be all kinds of reasons why I can’t get to that gold.
As it turns out, I was even stupider than I thought. Gold went down against the dollar … and is still down. Go figure. So let’s see what wisdom Turk, the gold salesman, is putting out now. Here at MD we “know” gold is not money.
And look at the title: Here at MD we know there is no such thing as finance when you have access to a “proper” MOE process. This is because inflation is guaranteed to be perpetually zero … the time value of money is zero and it is in perpetual free supply to responsible traders. When (1+i)^n is perpetually 1.000, there is nothing for finance to do. They’re all out of work.
We are told by Shakespeare: “Neither a borrower nor a lender be.” Is it good advice?
Like so many things in life, the answer is – it depends.
Individuals are different, and what is right for one person may not be suitable for another. What’s more, everyone’s circumstances are different, which may require different decisions that result in a myriad of outcomes.
Consider too what has happened to money in the four centuries that have passed since Shakespeare penned those immortal words. The Bard himself lived during a time of sound money, with commerce conducted using gold and silver coins.
MD: The obligatory “sound money” nonsense. We at MD can blow those arguments out of the water very simply by blasting their claimed attributes of money … one after the other.
But sound money ended in Britain and pretty much the rest of the world with the outbreak of war in 1914, though the last remnants survived until 1971.
MD: Gold as money never ever existed. If it ever got close, it was just as an expensive, inefficient, risky, trade restricting stand-in for money … that was always in the wrong place and in the wrong hands.
We now live in a world of fiat currency, where money-substitutes called dollars, pounds, euros and yen circulate rather than money itself. So what would Shakespeare be saying today?
MD: Boy does he need a good dose of reality. Fiat money “is” real money. The instances he enumerates are just from improper MOE processes. This is very familiar territory here at MD.
It’s an interesting question. Unfortunately The Bard is not around to answer it. But here’s how I see it.
MD: Actually, we should probably be looking for Francis Bacon. It’s not likely Shakespeare wrote a single line attributed to him. And I’m sure any of us who could have know him contemporaneously would find that obvious.
Let’s look at lending first. The interest rate one can earn on a savings account or other bank deposit is near zero. Even though the Bank of England and other central banks are talking about raising rates – and the Federal Reserve recently bumped up interest rates slightly – central bank policy across the globe is aimed at keeping interest rates low.
MD: Here at MD we recognize the term “lending” for what it is … a corruption of the traders invention and creation of money … by the money changers who co-opted the process. And the “proper” value of interest is zero … as is the proper value of inflation. Interest rates aren’t arbitrary. Interest is the immediate mitigation of defaults on money creating trading promises. These articles are always such painful reading. We here at MD see them for what they are: erudition founded on false premises. I’ll scan ahead now to see if there is anything in here even tangentially worth reading … and not purposeful self serving disinformation.
More importantly, interest rates on bank deposits are generally lower than the rising cost of living. What this means is that money put on deposit in a bank loses more purchasing power from inflation than it gains from the interest income earned on the deposit. It is in effect a tax on your wealth – your purchasing power. So Shakespeare’s advice could apply to making bank deposits, but borrowing is a trickier proposition.
Borrowing is always a two-edged sword. There are always risks when borrowing money, but there can be benefits too.
For example, it often makes sense to obtain a mortgage to purchase a house, given that having a shelter is a basic human need. But even here there is a risk. If mortgage payments are not paid on schedule, one risks losing their house, and perhaps even the equity they have built up in it.
MD: Only under an “improper” MOE process. In a “proper” MOE process, the only risk anyone takes is making a bad trade. All the risks you see enumerated here are money changer imposed risks … and they’re not risks … they’re purposeful predatory traps.
Borrowing for whatever purpose requires a lot of thought, but so does lending because it has risks too. These realities lead to an important question that tests Shakespeare’s admonition. Should one borrow or lend in today’s fiat currency world?
MD: What a stupid false choice! The real choice is: Should a trader trade over time and space today … or just in the here and now. The question only comes into play when you trade in the face of money changer predation and the manipulation by the governments they institute. They call it the “business cycle”. It is more properly their “farming operation.”
To help answer this question, I’ve created Lend & Borrow Trust Company Limited (“LBT”), and am pleased to say that Goldmoney is one of its investors. In fact, it is Goldmoney’s customers who I believe will understand the potential that LBT offers, as I explain in the following FAQs.
MD: Right out of the money changers playbook. I wonder what he would create if he had a clue what money really is. Frankly, having the where-with-all to create Goldmoney, he does have the where-with-all to institute a proper MOE process. But the problem is, there is no money to be made doing that. Unlike a Mutual Insurance Fund where money is made on investment income and otherwise premiums equal claims, with a “proper” MOE process, defaults equal interest collections … but there is no investment income … there is nothing to invest.
And this LBT is a little too close to LGBT for my comfort, thank you very much!
What is LBT?
LBT is an online peer-to-peer platform where lenders and borrowers interact to lend and borrow British pounds, Canadian dollars, euros, US dollars and Swiss francs. LBT is unique because it is the first P2P platform where all loans are secured by the borrower’s investment-grade gold and silver.
MD: I wonder if I could use this to get rid of my Goldmoney with no transaction cost.
What does LBT offer to lenders?
LBT provides an alternative to bank deposits. It enables lenders to earn interest income outside the banking system with five major national currencies. Through LBT’s online auctions, lenders:
may earn interest income at a rate above the inflation rate, and
are secured by the borrower’s gold/silver, which is sold to repay the lender if the borrower defaults.
MD: See how they must sustain the money changers “improper” MOE process to make a living. Do we really think people like Turk are our salvation? Do we really think the Harlem Globe Trotters and the Washington Generals are competing? … that they don’t report to the same management?
What does LBT offer to borrowers?
LBT enables borrowers to monetise their precious metals. Through LBT’s online auctions, borrowers:
may borrow at interest rates lower than available from banks,
use their investment-grade gold and silver bars as collateral to borrow, and
borrow in any of five currencies: GBP, USD, CAD, EUR and CHF.
MD: But can I do it without this fiction of borrowing. Can I just sell my “records of gold” for dollars and use it to pay off the money changers … who are overtly fleecing me right now at 8.25%?
How much can I lend?
There is no maximum, and the minimum is £5,000 or currency equivalent.
How much can I borrow?
You can borrow up to 65% of the value of your gold and silver that you pledge as collateral at loan commencement. LBT actively monitors this loan-to-value and makes a margin call if it rises to 75%, requiring the borrower to pledge more collateral and/or partially repay the loan to reduce it back to 65%. If the margin call is not met, LBT sells enough metal to meet the 65% benchmark.
Is LBT regulated?
Yes, LBT is based in the England and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to operate an electronic system in relation to lending. LBT does this through online auctions in which its customers participate.
MD: This is starting to look real humorous … like other religions. You’ve gotta love words like “authority” and “financial conduct”.
How are auctions started?
Online auctions are started by either the borrower or lender. Through these auctions lenders and borrowers compete with each other to seek an interest rate at which they are prepared to lend or borrow.
Can I borrow using my gold and silver in Goldmoney?
Yes, you choose how much and which metal or both you would like to pledge as collateral. At this time, only gold and silver stored in England and Hong Kong can be used.
How do I get started?
Click here to visit the LBT website and open an account.
Is there risk to lending or borrowing?
Yes, there is risk with everything in finance. Therefore, each individual needs to weigh the benefits LBT offers relative to the risks of lending and borrowing. If you are uncomfortable in making financial decisions, we recommend that you seek advice from a professional advisor. View LBT’s Risk Disclosure.
Did Shakespeare have any other financial advice?
There are many, and here’s my selection. “Money is a good soldier,” meaning it should be working for you because “Gold that’s put to use more gold begets”, provided of course it is done wisely.
MD: The trouble is “gold is not money” Turk! Would you refer to a “promise” as a soldier? Of course not! So why would you be comfortable referring to “money” as a soldier. Promises don’t “work for you”. You “work to deliver on them”. Big difference to the responsible trader. Not so much to the deadbeat.
This financial promotion has been issued and approved for the purpose of section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 by Lend & Borrow Trust Company Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”).
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect those of Goldmoney, unless expressly stated. The article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute either Goldmoney or the author(s) providing you with legal, financial, tax, investment, or accounting advice. You should not act or rely on any information contained in the article without first seeking independent professional advice. Care has been taken to ensure that the information in the article is reliable; however, Goldmoney does not represent that it is accurate, complete, up-to-date and/or to be taken as an indication of future results and it should not be relied upon as such. Goldmoney will not be held responsible for any claim, loss, damage, or inconvenience caused as a result of any information or opinion contained in this article and any action taken as a result of the opinions and information contained in this article is at your own risk.
MD: Anyone ever seen an instance of someone claiming “gold is money” and not finding them to be a gold salesman … or someone who has been deluded by a gold salesman?
MD: It’s hard to imagine an article with more fodder for exposing money delusions than this article published through The Daily Bail. This should be fun … and as usual, exasperating.
A few weeks ago the Board of Trustees of Social Security sent a formal letter to the United States Senate and House of Representatives to issue a dire warning: Social Security is running out of money.
MD: As in future tense? The Social Security scam (like Ponzi’s scam) was out of money the day it was put in place … not “running out of money” but “flat out of money”.
Given that tens of millions of Americans depend on this public pension program as their sole source of retirement income, you’d think this would have been front page news…
MD: I’m one of those. I knew this was a government scam from the moment I learned it existed. I prepared for my retirement as all should do… by myself. Not by my employer. Not by my government. And yet, not even counting this scam, I have given to government over fully 3/4ths of the fruits of my labor in my now ending life (70+ years). But it gets worse. When it came to deploying those funds towards my sustainable retirement, the government said I did it wrong. And so they took those funds … all of them … as a penalty. Reached right into my bank and took them. And then put a lien on my free and clear property. And I guarantee you, anyone who has resisted the money changer instituted government have the same story to tell.
Abolish government and maybe I would consider doing life again. Otherwise, not no! but HELL NO!!!
Regarding the news: You mean the constant stream of money changer propaganda emanating from the governments they create and the media they institute to effect the public brain washing … is that the news you speak of?
… and that every newspaper in the country would have reprinted this ominous projection out of a basic journalistic duty to keep the public informed about an issue that will affect nearly everyone.
MD: Dreamer! What’s in it for the government to direct the media to do that? What’s in it for the money changers that instituted that government strictly to protect their perpetual scam?
But that didn’t happen.
The story was hardly picked up.
It’s astonishing how little attention this issue receives considering it will end up being one of the biggest financial crises in US history.
MD: Now really! It would have been astonishing if the report had made it into the news. Whoever wrote it is obviously off the reservation and probably being disciplined as I write.
That’s not hyperbole either– the numbers are very clear.
The US government itself calculates that the long-term Social Security shortfall exceeds $46 TRILLION.
MD: Why do they bother to calculate it? They have no intention nor means of paying it. It will continue until the reset. If it is a government reset like the Weimar case (and the soon to be the Venezuela case), many people will just be screwed, the numbers will be reset to zero on their accounts, and it will all just start up again. Read “When Money Dies” by Ferguson.
If the reset is like the case of the French Revolution, the sale of guillotine kits will spike … and a mere 20,000 or so of these criminals will be quickly eradicated and fed to the chickens and hogs, leaving the handful who are actually the culprits totally unscathed. If you wanted to put your hands on a Rothschild, do you realistically think you could? Just as an exercise, try to just pinpoint the position of one right now. Some one should start a website to do that … like they do for keeping track of tail numbers on airplanes … that prove the government’s 911 conspiracy is a total fabrication … as if the mysterious collapse of WTC7 didn’t also do that … in simpler and more convincing fashion.
In other words, in order to be able to pay the benefits they’ve promised, Social Security needs a $46 trillion bailout.
Fat chance.
That amount is over TWICE the national debt, and nearly THREE times the size of the entire US economy.
Moreover, it’s nearly SIXTY times the size of the bailout that the banking system received back in 2008.
So this is a pretty big deal.
MD: No it’s not. If it was, you wouldn’t be voluntarily giving over 3/4ths of the fruits of your labor to governments. You and your neighbors would just stop paying. Not doing that are you! It’s the “one” thing “you” can do … and you’re not doing it! You’re just crying in your beer here!
I presume you were not created as a farmer residing in Chili. So you just personally decided to give the fruits of your labor to some other government. It would be interesting to look at your historical financial records. I’ll be I’d find at an earlier point in your life you were an “active” part of the problem … if you aren’t still and “active part of the problem.”
More importantly, even though the Social Security Trustees acknowledge that the fund is running out of money, their projections are still wildly optimistic.
In order to build their long-term financial models, Social Security’s administrators have to make certain assumptions about the future.
What will interest rates be in the future? What will the population growth rate be? How high (or low) will inflation be?
MD: … as he leaves off the actuarial analysis completely! What’s up with that? You have to do that … because there is “no” actuarial analysis. You don’t need one when you don’t recognize or accept any risk. You just counterfeit money and traders pay in the form of inflation.
These variables can dramatically impact the outcome for Social Security.
For example, Social Security assumes that productivity growth in the US economy will average between 1.7% and 2% per year.
MD: With a “proper” MOE process that number would be 0%. As it is, it is just 1/2 the 4% leak the money changers stick us with … as their “tribute”. Demand a competitive “proper” MOE process and institute it … and then let’s see how they do. Hint: They wilt on the vine. They are deprived of their total source of nourishment.
This is an important assumption: the faster US productivity grows, the faster the economy will grow. And this ultimately means more tax revenue (and more income) for the program.
MD: A proper MOE process doesn’t care about growth at all. It behaves exactly the same regardless of whether there are more or fewer traders and the traders are more or less active. This is because it “guarantees” perpetual perfect balance between the supply and demand for the exchange media itself. It never has to grow into or out of anything.
But -actual- US productivity growth is WAY below their assumption.
Over the past ten years productivity growth has been about 25% below their expectations.
And in 2016 US productivity growth was actually NEGATIVE.
Here’s another one: Social Security is hoping for a fertility rate in the US of 2.2 children per woman.
This is important, because a higher population growth means more people entering the work force and paying in to the Social Security system.
MD: So you are openly acknowledging it is a Ponzi scheme … and “you” voluntarily paid in to it and promoted and supported it, didn’t you!
But the actual fertility rate is nearly 20% lower than what they project.
And if course, the most important assumption for Social Security is interest rates.
MD: With a “proper” MOE process there is no such thing as an interest rate. Defaults are detected and immediately mitigated by interest collections of like amount. Divide it by what you want for a rate. It is meaningless when viewed as a rate.
100% of Social Security’s investment income is from their ownership of US government bonds.
MD: Which are “never” repaid … they are just perpetually rolled over … that is default … that is counterfeiting. And worse … the interest paid goes straight to the money changers. Why? Beats me? Just because they say it does!
So if interest rates are high, the program makes more money. If interest rates are low, the program doesn’t make money.
Where are interest rates now? Very low.
In fact, interest rates are still near the lowest levels they’ve been in US history.
Social Security hopes that ‘real’ interest rates, i.e. inflation-adjusted interest rates, will be at least 3.2%.
This means that they need interest rates to be 3.2% ABOVE the rate of inflation.
This is where their projections are WAY OFF… because real interest rates in the US are actually negative.
MD: Really? I’m paying 8.24% for money that is over collateralized … by a factor of 5. And I can’t replace it with something else because the money changers are the only game in town. If we had a proper MOE process, I would have been paying 0% and would have completed by delivery promise long ago.
The 12-month US government bond currently yields 1.2%. Yet the official inflation rate in the Land of the Free is 1.7%.
MD: If government taking 3/4ths of the fruits of your labor is free, what is slavery?
In other words, the interest rate is LOWER than inflation, i.e. the ‘real’ interest rate is MINUS 0.5%.
Social Security is depending on +3.2%.
MD: Yet they claim inflation is zero. My social security went up 0.3% last year.
So their assumptions are totally wrong.
And it’s not just Social Security either.
According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, US public pension funds at the state and local level are also underfunded by an average of 67.9%.
MD: Which is a good thing. Because the government just confiscates that funding anyway!
Additionally, most pension funds target an investment return of between 7.5% to 8% in order to stay solvent.
Yet in 2015 the average pension fund’s investment return was just 3.2%. And last year a pitiful 0.6%.
MD: With a “proper” MOE process, the analysis would be totally actuarial. Things get much much simpler when inflation is guaranteed to be zero. So do investment decisions. With (1+i)^n perpetually yielding 1.000 for all “n”, everyone who has “finance” anywhere in his job title is out of work.
This is a nationwide problem. Social Security is running out of money. State and local pension funds are running out of money.
And even still their assumptions are wildly optimistic. So the problem is much worse than their already dismal forecasts.
Understandably everyone is preoccupied right now with whether or not World War III breaks out in Guam.
(I would respectfully admit that this is one of those times I am grateful to be living on a farm in the southern hemisphere.)
MD: Grateful? It was a conscious choice for you wasn’t it? Happy with the government imposed on you there? Same money changers instituted it as did the government we have here. If we don’t neuter the money changers we don’t phase any of these issues.
But long-term, these pension shortfalls are truly going to create an epic financial and social crisis.
It’s a ticking time bomb, and one with so much certainty that we can practically circle a date on a calendar for when it will hit.
There are solutions.
MD: So let’s see if he poses the obvious correct treatment … i.e. institute a “proper” MOE process in competition with “their improper” MOE process. Looking ahead … nope he doesn’t. He just says save. Saving is “safety stock”. It’s an inventory control concept. We should need almost no safety stock at all without a predatory government to plan for.
Waiting on politicians to fix the problem is not one of them.
The government does not have a spare $45 trillion lying around to re-fund Social Security.
MD: It has never needed it? Have you also noticed that government never has trouble finding people to staff all the commissions they create to crank out and regulate their nonsense?
So anyone who expects to retire with comfort and dignity is going to have to take matters into their own hands and start saving now.
MD: Saving isn’t enough. The government will go right into your bank and take your savings … any time it chooses … legally. What does that tell you about the “rule of law”? If you have surplus, you better give attention to hiding it.
Consider options like SEP IRAs and 401(k) plans that have MUCH higher contribution limits, as well as self-directed structures which give you greater influence over how your retirement savings are invested.
MD: He says, as if there is any legitimacy in those limits. Remember, those incentives are just to make you think you can beat the government in their taking of 3/4ths of the fruits of your labor. You can’t. Anything you put in those plans, they can and will confiscate.
These flexible structures also allow investments in alternative asset classAes like private equity, cashflowing royalties, secured lending, cryptocurrency, etc.
MD: “Allow”??? !!!!! See how easily he buys into their scam and supports it? Every alternative he enumerates is just another money changer scam.
Education is also critical.
Learning how to be a better investor can increase your investment returns and (most importantly) reduce losses.
MD: Actually, learning that you are in no way, shape, or form an investor is the education you should have. Investing is an illusion, brought to you by the money changers. Think about it. They run a system with a 4% leak … and then they say that gives money “time value”. Then they use that time-value concept to get you to part with the 1/4th of the fruits of your labor they haven’t already taken. And you write about it like it was legitimate!
And increasing the long-term average investment return of your IRA or 401(k) by just 1% per year can have a PROFOUND (six figure) impact on your retirement.
MD: Wrong. The best thing you can do for your retirement is to buy land in a low tax, low services county and find a way to sustain yourself with a minimum of outside help … and with zero help from the money changers and the governments they institute.
These solutions make sense: there is ZERO downside in saving more money for retirement.
MD: I have direct evidence to the contrary. If they can “see that money”, the can and will “take that money”. True, you must put resources aside … but saving is not the proper term. Hiding is the proper term.
But it’s critical to start now. A little bit of effort and planning right now will pay enormous dividends in the future.
MD: Relax. You are already toast. What you can do … support iterative secession and institute a proper MOE process, you will not do … nor will anyone you know.
So as a failed politician once said: “If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it”.
MD: Here at MD we are aware of far more delusions that cripple society than just the money delusion. Some are related. Some are not. Other delusions are about democracy … and about the rule of law. In commenting here, I think I’m going to be getting into delusions about law. Let’s see.
MD: Laws just plain don’t work … witness the 40,000+ new ones we get every single year. Further, take a gander at how those laws are made. To further show the falacy of laws, consider how many you must write just to embrace the simple “principle” of the golden rule. Hint: There are fewer grains of sand on all the worlds beaches. When we deal with things in a societal manner, we should deal in principles and not laws. And we shouldn’t bring things to a societal forum that can be handled in a more constrained forum. The individual is the ideal forum for addressing issues … most can be dealt with right there when you are guided by principles …. not laws.
But economists have concentrated far too much attention on efficiency and far too little on the political role of markets.
MD: Any discovery of political role reveals a flawed process. Politics has no place in trading … no place in economics. All issues in trading and economics are easily handled by the traders involved … and adherence to principles … starting with the golden rule. When you tolerate cheating, you’re going to be dealing with lots of cheating. When you classify cheating as gamesmanship you are deluding yourself.
To the extent that markets are allowed to allocated resources among uses, political allocation is not required.
MD: Bingo … even without the “allowed” qualification.
Markets minimize resort to politics. Once markets are not allowed to work, however, or once they are interfered with in their allocative functioning, politics must enter. And political allocation, like market allocation, involves profit seeking as a dynamic activating force.
MD: I’m perplexed how we can be in violent agreement here … and how Cafe Hayek can be so clueless about trade, traders, and money.
DBx: Many opponents of markets find the open quest for profits in market economies to be unethical or unaesthetic, and they blame markets.
MD: There is no substitute for “markets”. To attempt a substitute is just to impose another market … i.e. another playing field … with a set of rules that favors one set of traders over another. Let the traders be free to choose their own playing field … and others who claim they should not be allowed to do that can just go pound sand.
What these opponents miss is the fact that the self-interest that is typically – and even the greed that is sometimes – on display in markets is not created by commercial markets.
MD: Self interest is personal and totally natural. Anyone who claims they are not first in every question of pecking order is deluding themselves. Greed, in the final analysis, is a person’s confusion about what their self interest really is. In the end it accomplishes a goal they don’t want to attain. There is very little of use in the bible … but at least they there tell of a guy named Ecclesiastes as “getting this concept” … in the end
Commercial markets are merely a forum in which individuals act on these motivations.
MD: Why the “commercial” qualification?
One of most profound errors committed by market opponents is to suppose that when activities are transferred from commercial markets into the realm of politics human imperfections and self-interest are replaced by superhuman perfection and altruism.
MD: Pretty peculiar isn’t it, when you stand back and observe “all” politics is sub-human, not close to perfection, and arises out of advanced selfishness … in violation of the golden rule for those practicing and imposing it. In fact, they openly oppose and refuse to comply with their own rules and those they impose on others.
But as Buchanan argues, it’s naive to suppose that the mere shifting of activities from one resource-allocation forum to another changes the underlying human motivations. (And such shifting certainly does not change the underlying human cognitive limitations.)
MD: It changes the playing field. That’s it. But worse, it disallows others from leaving the field … just taking their ball and going home. The USA Constitution does not have the “obligatory” buy/sell agreement. You “will not” secede.
So profit seeking occurs in political settings no less than in market settings. But the kinds of information and constraints in political settings differ greatly from those in market settings.
MD: Remember, democracy only works with less than 50 people involved. And the political setting being addressed in the case of the USA has 500,000 involved … in the “most representative” case. Ridiculous! We are tolerating a process that was DOA … and the writers of the Anti-Federalist Papers were totally aware of it. But the money changers, as always, prevailed. They’re the ones who called the meeting in the first place.
Therefore, the kinds of actions taken in one setting, and the consequences of those actions, differ from the actions and consequences in the other setting.
MD: That’s not a “therefore” qualification. You see those differences and consequences between just two traders on the same playing field negotiating the same issues … just at a different point in time. That’s called trading. It has, at most, three steps: (1) Negotiation; (2) Promise to Deliver; (3) Delivery. In many cases it doesn’t pass the first step. In the case of simple barter exchange in the here and now, steps (2) and (3) happen simultaneously on the spot. Under political influences, step (3) happens under manipulated time and space and step (2) never is used at all! It is just lied about.
One important difference is that in markets, profits are earned only through voluntary payments while in politics profits are typically extracted by forcibly transferring property from the politically weak to the politically strong. The fact that such transfers are not overtly called “profit seeking” – and the fact that political activities are camouflaged with public-interest rhetoric – doesn’t change the underlying reality.
MD: But it’s worse. The money changers control the “improper” MOE process we all use. That is really where the problems begin and end. Allowing a “proper” MOE process to compete makes all these issues go away. There is “no political economy” in such a case.
In summary, in the market Smith profits only by building a better mousetrap or by devising a process that reduces the amount of resources used to build a familiar mousetrap.
MD: Wrong. The process allows one trader to convince another that that is the case. More trades take place under delusions than under rational choice. If that wasn’t the case, advertising would be very much different.
(Smith might do so directly, as a mousetrap producer, or indirectly, as someone who secures the financing for a mousetrap producer.)
MD: With a “proper” MOE process, the “financing” qualification is totally unnecessary. Any responsible trader can make a promise spanning time and space and create the money to carry it out in the domain of a “proper” MOE process. Deadbeat traders can too, but the more irresponsible they prove to be, the more interest load they must bear in reclaiming the defaults the make. At the limit, they preclude “themselves” from money creation privileges in the domain. They can use all the money they want … anonymously. They just can’t effectively create it. What they create immediately is taken back by interest collections. There is nothing left to do anything with.
In politics, Jones typically profits by confiscating mousetraps from Smith or from Smith’s customers, or by confiscating the inputs that Smith would otherwise use to make mousetraps.
MD: This also happens in normal trade without politics. If Jones can manipulate Smith’s perception in the (1) Negotiation phase, Smith is putty in Jones’ hands. And if you don’t allow the (1) Negotiation phase, you have different issues entirely. Don’t make this more complicated than it needs to be.
Marxists have long complained that conventional economic analysis takes for granted the existing system of property rights. The charge is fundamentally correct.
Politics that is confined to a few and well-defined tasks cannot be seriously predatory.
