Friday, June 16, 2017

Bolshevism, The Fail That Keeps On Giving Forever

Evidence has nothing to do with it. There is always a larger supply of human failures than successes and those failures will always choose the consolation prize as an alternative to suicide.

Anthropology is all about K-Types and R-Types. There is no such thing as "politics." It's a McGuffin, it doesn't exist. It is talked about but the underlying reality is biological.


Aeoli Pera said...

Link done been shoah'd.

Sam said...

I'm going to be damned but I'm actually for some elements of socialism. Namely a citizens dividend or basic minimum wage. The Oligarchs control the "Capital" on a Capitalist system so the average guy ALWAYS loses. It's a set up. Yet the debt and value of the currency is spread across all of a society. Don't forget when the banking crisis came in the US they gave the banks we know $16 Trillion dollars and through auditing government documents it's believed the number went to over $29 Trillion. At $29 Trillion and 300 million Americans we could have given a zero interest loan for every family of four of $386,666. Housing crisis solved and the economy would have roared with all that cash going into people’s pockets. Let's say this was turned into a family basic income. For every family of four they could have had a basic income of $10,000 for over 38 years. That's a damn long time. Another way to look at it is it could provide that income for ten years for each individual. This would greatly improve the prospects for marriage if the Males portion could not under any circumstances be taken. Not debt, child support or any other reason. Two could live together cheaper than one making people more likely to get married and promoting the family unit which is just what the globalist want.

The problem with Socialism is the elites control it. They don't just give people money they tie up everything they give people in a mass of rules and regulations. If they provided money for the basics then let people alone while providing protect from criminals things would slowly get better. All Socialistic States eventually fall because they end up attacking the population.

Edward said...

It isn't really money, none of it is. You can't suddenly put in more fake funds in from the bottom up, or you get hyperinflation. If everyone has $386,000 for a house, then regular houses are suddenly going to cost $2million, and nothing really changes.
The entire system only works on the narcissism of small differences, local relative social/emotional 'status' differentials by means of relative capacity to display proxy symbols of wealth and power for males and virtue and/or sexual desirability for females. If you give people access to equal funds then the incentive to differentiate themselves via manufacturing, buying and selling status goods disappears, and then so does the incentive to do so much intellectually challenging or strenuous manual labour. Then the basic products and services disappear, and everyone materially suffers as stuff falls apart.

It's a very fine balancing act that requires continual tweaking and propaganda to keep everything relatively in motion, the actual numbers themselves matter very little in the grand scheme of things. No one actually has trillions of dollars, some people just have more relative power to direct the flow of resources than others, hopefully mostly because they have previously demonstrated the capacity to direct those resources wisely.
In the end that's all there really is, the rest is just blips in computers, values on a ledger somewhere.

Sam said...

Edward said,"It isn't really money, none of it is. You can't suddenly put in more fake funds in from the bottom up, or you get hyperinflation..."

I'm not so sure you're right about this. The reason is that basic food and shelter are already consumed. If people had a basic income they could live where ever they wanted instead of where they work. If you knew that you would be getting a fixed amount you could live in places that cost next to nothing to live in. This in turn would cut down on commuting, etc. By having more choices people could optimize their living standards. We're also not talking about $300K a year. We're talking about Social Security type numbers. $1,000 a month and probably less. At the same time you passed basic income a bunch of programs would be cut. They are actually spending more for less as huge numbers of bureaucrats feed off of these programs.

Sam said...

I forgot to add we didn't hear all this gnashing of the teeth over inflation when the FED pumped $28 trillion into the banks. Yet when you favor subsidizing citizens directly suddenly it's "more than the market can bear", panic, inflation.

Let's also add that if we canceled the FED's money racket where we pay them to basically say,"give me a bond with interest and I'll let you print money" then we could stop an outlay of probably at a minimum of $500 billion a year and more likely much more. That's half of the money needed.

Texas Arcane said...


Men who are willing to take their basic sustenance from the government have something wrong with them biologically. In healthy development of males you will never see that.

Gary said...

Sam, take a look at America's trade deficits over the past 50 years.
Take a look at the FedGov deficits over the same period.
Soon, those twin deficits will collapse the US currency.
$10k won't buy you a loaf of bread.
Keep dreaming though.

Edward said...

Well I think a basic income is good as a safety net too, but a basic income won't/shouldn't get you a nice house, there has to be some kind of incentive to make the system work.
Seems like it's really the property that's actually way overvalued relative to the potential future 'productivity' of the average worker, which isn't going to rise very much more substantially.

But you can't just give people more money for the same amount of work, so that they can afford somewhere to nicer live, or you also drive up the prices of all kinds of other goods.

You can't just drop the asset prices, as so much stuff is collateralised off them, so you are basically screwed either way.

So 'giving the banks lots of money', wasn't really giving them money for nothing, it was essentially to try to help untangle some of the knots that the system had tied itself up in.
That's why they call it 'liquidity', its more a measurement of rate of flow, it's not physical matter.

Nobody has all those trillions in any more useful form, there ain't anything like that much matrial wealth in the world. There's only a lot of fictitious debt, and people who think they have legal claims over that fictitious debt. And it's not just apparently 'rich' people that have a lot of claims over the debt, it's everyone's pensions and asset valuations too, so it's very hard to unravel the tangles.