Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

Rihanna, Education, Administration, Empire

July 26, 2017

Rihanna is another miracle on legs similarly to the hyper blonde Colombian Shakira, or Beyonce a very pretty package who incorporated tricks invented in places such as 1950s strip bars, all over. I must recognize she seems to have more brains and more advanced, more intelligent and controversial passions.   

63 million of children are known to not go to school in developing countries But the delightful future billionaire exhibitionist Rihanna, expert in sideways glances, eyelids down, wants to help.

Rihanna‏Verified account @rihanna  Jun 23   bonjour @EmmanuelMacron, will France commit to #FundEducation?

Glad to see Rihanna cares about getting educated, this site is all about education. Rihanna has pretty violent videos out there, which meet, of course, my approbation, as thoroughly educative programs. I approve of showing violence, because violence there is, and it festers more if it can stay stealthy. Making it obvious deprives it of stealth, hence surprise, half of a successful aggression.

https://www.vevo.com/watch/rihanna/bitch-better-have-my-money-(explicit)/QM5FT1590005

Rihanna has sold more than 250 million records, and was named the 2017 Harvard University Humanitarian of the Year (so, apparently Harvard doesn’t mind so much the violence anymore…). Intriguingly, Rihanna’s latest boyfriend, Hasan Jameel, is a wealthy plutocrat (two billion dollars plus), a Saudi heir. No doubt she can improve his education, open new perspectives on the worth of woman.

So the pulpy Caribbean native may get money for education, but the problem of poorly-developing countries do not arise because not enough money has been thrown at education. One problem is that throwing money at developing countries just enrich plutocrats, local or global. If a country is headed by plutocrats, feeding them is like feeding crocodiles in a crocodile farm. 

Rihanna, here in Paris, July 25th 2017, to feed Macron fleshy perspectives top pop to pop top.

Poorly developing countries have fundamentally the same two problems:1. bad administration arising from dictatorship and, or wrong ideology. 2. Not being part of an empire. It goes without saying that self-described good people will view such views with a jaundiced eye, because their own “good” logic tells them developing countries are good and empires are bad.

Take Islam, where women are legislatively, half of men, cloistered and forbidden the freedom human ethology gives them. They end up somewhat stupid and acculturated. As women are frontlines for educating children, the next generation of Islamist children will be more  stupid and uneducated than they would be otherwise.Hence a vicious circle.  

When Lebanon and Syria were administered by France, they were doing well. They didn’t do good before that, under the Caliphate, or after that, under the dictatorships.

National education without appropriate administration to make it sustainable is a non sequitur. One can’t have an appropriate administration without proper command and control. In other words, an appropriate empire.

When thinking of empire, people tend to think of malevolent empires on military rampages; the invasive Caliphates, the Mongols, Napoleon, etc. But the greatest civilizations were, and are, empires. China formed giant empires and owe its persistence to empires (as its brush with annihilation when Genghis Khan conquered it shows). The Greco-Roman world defined an empire which in turn defines today’s civilization, when properly extended to its roots (Egypt, Phoenicia, Crete) and its successors (the Franks who created the “Occident” in which we all bathe now).

Right now, whether we like it or not, we are in a world empire. It’s called the United Nations, and it’s not a democracy. And that’s very good as some nations proved culturally unable to distinguish between civilization and genocide (of Japan, Germany, Italy and their allies we think).

The UN is composed essentially of two components: the West, and China. (Russia and the USA are two colonies of the West; Russia, from the Vikings, plus back influence from the Greeks mostly; the USA is the double descendant of France, as England herself was a Franco-Frankish creation.)

The UN empire has not been extended in all corners. Actually “decolonization” was more of a de-administrationalization substituting often a republican form to more dictatorial variants. For example, under the french, Algeria was arguably under the (defective and unjust) administration of various (French) parties, some on the right, some on the left. Since “independence”, Algeria has been under the administration of just one party. Actually, the present president of Algeria, Bouteflika, was one of the principals of the Algerian “revolution”, so he has been in power personally for nearly 70 years…  Yes, he is in a wheelchair, and gets repaired periodically in France.

Now the empire needs to be re-extended in all corners. It is in these distant corners not under direct imperial control that war and lack of education, rule. An example is the confines of Congo where an unsavory interaction between Rwanda military, and plutocratic corporations anxious for minerals, brought five million dead, let alone poor education.

Other muscular interventions are needed. Interpretations of Islam which subjugate women more than men need to be discouraged much more (although with Saudi Arabia in charge of enforcing this at the UN, the situation has become surrealistic…)

It’s a violent world. The violence is supported by, and supports, a violent lack of advanced, all-encompassing education. Unfortunately impositions of mass violence are nearly never solved pacifically, contrarily to legend(those who are already rolling out Gandhi and Martin Luther King, as they read this, are rolling out people who didn’t make the main effort: the Brits were pulling out of India, anyway, Gandhi arguably made things worse; MLK came long after military force was used massively to end racism in the USA, by president Lincoln, and Eisenhower…)

Lack of education is an imposition of mass violence (teaching is not very costly, so the obstacle to education is not cost, but will, will to impose brutishness). Thus it has to be solved with massive power, the power of proper administration, on the heels of imperial intervention (imperial intervention does not necessarily start with special forces, it can start with judges and accountants).

I don’t doubt Rihanna’s sincerity, which is more than eleven years old. I don’t doubt that micro and local humanitarian help is important. However, it’s little relative to the big picture. When France decolonized itself out of Africa, there was a hospital every one hundred kilometer. France left, the hospitals are mostly gone. In a related phenomenon, the growth of literal Islamist schools directed to very small children, at the detriment of real, secular education, has been all over. Consequence? Islamist invasion and military counter-offensives from the French Republic. Some will whine: leave them alone. But then they contradict themselves. Children don’t chose to die and be uneducated: it’s imposed on them by local potentates, symbiotic with global plutocracy (to which they extent access to resources). Once again, the framework already exists: the UN, with its mighty Security Council. 

Want a correct, massive world educational system? Impose a correct, appropriate world empire!

Let Rihanna sing about that!
Patrice Ayme’

Zuckerberg Sucks Bergs

July 11, 2017

Zuckerberg, Facebook main owner: “Priscilla and I spent the weekend around Homer, Alaska as part of the Year of Travel challenge. It’s beautiful here.” Next week, he does Bali? How does he travel there? Cattle class? Probably a personal jumbo jet, like the Google guys. Full of an army of bodyguards. Could we emit more CO2 please, Antarctica is not breaking apart fast enough! OK, I have been to Alaska more than once, it’s incredibly beautiful there. But I also have (lots of) close family in Alaska (thus a good excuse to visit).

Zuckerberg: “Alaska has a form of basic income called the Permanent Fund Dividend. Every year, a portion of the oil revenue the state makes is put into a fund. Rather than having the government spend that money, it is returned to Alaskan residents through a yearly dividend that is normally $1000 or more per person. That can be especially meaningful if your family has five or six people.

This is a novel approach to basic income in a few ways. First, it’s funded by natural resources rather than raising taxes. Second, it comes from conservative principles of smaller government, rather than progressive principles of a larger safety net. This shows basic income is a bipartisan idea.”

Zuck is poorly informed: the dividend used to be much more than $1000 per year per person. But now the state is heading towards heavy debt, from the collapse of oil revenues. Zuck also has some cheeks, to call “especially meaningful” to earn one thousand dollars a year, when he earns personally several billions dollars every few months.  Notice in passing that smaller government and eschewing “progressive principles of a larger safety net… is a bipartisan idea”. According to him.

***

Pluto Zuck says: …“basic income… [to be] funded by natural resources rather than raising taxes. Second, it comes from conservative principles of smaller government, rather than progressive principles of a larger safety net. This shows basic income is a bipartisan idea.” So go hunt in the forest: there are your natural resources. “Conservative principles of smaller government… is a bipartisan idea”. Progressive principles are not bipartisan.

In other words, the bipartisan party is the plutocratic party. It’s also ironical, that a “larger safety net” is to be avoided: except for Zuck himself, who needs to be protected by his own private army.

In San Francisco where Zuckerberg (also) resides, those who bother his army of bodyguards are thrown in prison, three months at a time. A man sleeping outside Zuckerberg in his car was put in prison. In his other mansion in Palo Alto, Zuckerberg, college drop-out, but NSA collaborator, receives the safety net of 16 bodyguards, 24/7. It was not enough to buy the four mansions around his own… to insure his own “progressive principles of a larger safety net”. 

In Zuckerberg’s world, the world is about Zuckerberg. Serving Zuckerberg’s safety.

Not happy? You are probably “an unstable Internet user” and you should move to Alaska! There, you can go, live off “natural resources” as native Americans do so successfully, hunting bears and the like.

***

Not only Zuckerberg sucks the teat of state, but he gives us lessons about us, low lives, needing to quit the habit

While claiming he does not, as demonstrated by his desire to make the state much smaller … forgetting that Facebook, operating hand in hand with US intelligence, has made the state so much larger and omnipresent. This is a deliberately confusing circus, or, as the Guardian puts it: “Mark Zuckerberg is part of the bigger trend of global companies expecting the state to pick up the tab even though they’re not prepared to pay the taxes to fund it.

I have long said this, attracting opprobrium. Zuckerberg is also representative of these new plutocrats who treat the elected butlers supposed to represent us, as pigeons fighting for crumbs.

The Guardian has finally noticed how far the outrageous behavior of the Facebook founder will go. In Mark Zuckerberg’s got some cheek, advocating a universal basic income, Sonia Sodha observes that:

“Facebook’s CEO has spent the last couple of years casting himself in various guises. First, global philanthropist: he and his wife last year pledged to invest $3bn over 10 years in order to eradicate global disease (a well-meaning if hopelessly naive sentiment; it’s a tiny fraction of what’s spent on medical research worldwide). Most lately, social commentator: Zuckerberg is currently undertaking a 50-state meet-and-greet tour across the United States. Little wonder rumours are flying that he fancies himself for an imminent White House run.

Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg aim to ‘cure, prevent and manage’ all disease?

Put aside for a moment the chilling thought that if the chief of the world’s most ubiquitous media platform chose to run to be leader of the free world, his command of Facebook’s unrivalled ability to profile, segment and target voters might make him all but unbeatable. What might he do as president? The missives from his grand tour – published, of course, on Facebook – provide some clues. Last week’s was from Alaska. Zuckerberg used it as an opportunity to heap praise on the idea of a universal basic income – an unconditional income paid by government to all citizens, regardless of whether or not they’re in work.”

***

Plutocrats love men, as lions do, with no government to protect them:

We are told Marc Zuckerberg, his wife, Priscilla Chan, and their ilk, are “lovers of man” (phil-anthropos). The wealthiest spy agency operators in the world are “persons who seeks to promote the welfare of others”. Does that mean we don’t? Does that mean we don’t promote the welfare of others? Does that mean that one has to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes, to be called a lover of man? Does that mean one has to run the world’s largest spying operation, to be called a “lover of man”? Does that mean we have to pledge billions of tax money we should have paid to be called a “lover of man”?

The generosity of bandits has no limits: their survival depends upon it.

Let’s do a little computation. The median family income in the USA is 60 K. The median worth, a bit more. So “worth” and yearly income are roughly the same. Scaling this up to Zuckerberg, this means the plutocrat controls money flows of the order of his wealth, each year. Namely 50 billions. (Facebook’s revenue in 2016 was actually $28 billion.)

***

Zuckerberg and Chan claim they want to save the world, do good. But they are living, impudent, obvious, blatant symbols of inequality, the greatest factor in human misery. The more unequal a society the more selfish, violent, stupid, insane, ill, unfair, demented a society is. If Zuck Zuck and Chan were sincere, they would fund an academy for the reduction of inequality. If Zuckerberg was sincere,he would advocate for higher taxes. Instead, he advocates for the exact opposite, and he basically pays no taxes already (relative to his income and effective control output)

***

Separation of wealth and state violated:

In other words Zuckerberg directly directs the flow of 1/1000 of the world economy. However, Zuckerberg’s influence is far more ranging: Zuckerberg has been received in all the presidential palaces and heads of governments mansions, in the countries which really matter, including China. Why do the mightiest receive the wealthiest in the halls of power? Isn’t this, per se, a violation of the separation of wealth and state?

Presumably, Zuckerberg and his ilk are negotiating his power of influence versus the future incomes of elected officials, their kin, friends, children… Zuckerberg and his ilk are together-breathing (con-spirare) with the mightiest politicians. The latter are ephemeral, Zuckerberg is permanent. Here is The Guardian again:

***

“Zuckerberg’s got some cheek. The idea of a universal basic income is all very well and good in sparsely populated Alaska, where revenues from natural oil fund a modest annual dividend to the state’s permanent residents that in the last decade has varied between $800 and $2,000.

But the proponents of a basic income often talk it up as replacement for welfare benefits altogether. Funding a decent safety net that gets paid to everyone – where there isn’t a multibillion-dollar state-backed fund conveniently created in the 1970s from oil reserves – would be very expensive. The cash would either have to come from hiking up taxes or significantly cutting back state spending on other services, such as education and health.

Here’s the rub. Zuckerberg has no right to pronounce on what the welfare state should look like while Facebook takes aggressive measures to minimise its tax burden. Here in the UK, Facebook paid just £4,327 in corporation tax in 2014, despite paying its UK staff bonuses of £35m. In 2015, it offset its tax bill of £4.2m against a tax credit of £11.3m – despite making global profits of almost £5bn.”

***

Work is power, so we will take it away from you, replace it by basic income, say Silicon Valley plutocrats;

This is an infection: those plutocrats rule the world. Just as when the Roman Republic started to die, they have found tricks to avoid taxes, by using globalization, exactly as the Roman plutocrats did!

“It’s not just Facebook: global tech giants such as Amazon and Google are notorious for exploiting every loophole to get out of paying their fair share of tax. It’s deeply hypocritical for Zuckerberg to back the idea of a state-based income while his company does everything it can to avoid paying tax. And there’s a clue Zuckerberg sees a basic income as a replacement for, not in addition to, public services, “It comes from conservative principles of smaller government, rather than progressive principles of a larger safety net,” he writes.

Zuckerberg is not the first Silicon Valley CEO to talk up universal basic income: it’s an idea fast gaining traction in that corner of California. This is no coincidence. One of the beliefs that powers Silicon Valley’s fervent tech worship is the idea that artificial intelligence and automation will one day spell the end of work. This is implicit in the business plans: Uber’s growth strategy, for instance, is based on the idea that driverless technology will one day replace its drivers altogether.”

***

The More Income Inequality In A Country, The More Drug Use:

Thanks, oh you, billionaires! As Inequality Has Exploded in the USA in recent years, thanks to Obama’s Quantitative Easing and pro-plutocratic monopolies ploy, so has drug usage. There are now more death from drugs than from cars of shootings.

***

How come cockamamie plutocrats? Lack of basic education!

Most plutocrats are actually rather ignorant: Zuckerberg, Gates have no college degrees (Whereas Warren Buffet has a master of science in economics from Columbia U). They didn’t go through basic education. If he had, maybe Zuckerberg would realize the income per capita of Alaskan citizen used to be ten times more (in constant dollars). I wouldn’t be surprised if it had disappeared next year. Zuck probably knows nothing of the history of the price of oil.

About three out of 10 billionaires—29.9%—around the world did not have at least a bachelor degree in 2015, according to a billionaire census by Wealth-X. That’s 739 out of the total 2,473 billionaires.

It’s a bit of a problem, because these people are leading the world’s politicians by the nose at this point. They think they are the smartest, but, typically, they confuse smarts, greed, happenstance, and conspiracy (“Social Networks” and other high-tech as a spy agencies…)

To mitigate this capture of politics by one needs to introduce a good dose of direct democracy: then the orders will be coming not from the wealthiest, stupidest people in the world, but directly from We The People, as they did in Athens, Rome, and now Switzerland…

 

***

Civilization means government. Big Government started with Trajan, then the Merovingians:

Let’s backtrack a bit: Roman emperor Trajan fostered higher taxes on the wealthiest to enable a welfare state, including food distribution to the poor, government scholarship to meritorious students. Under Trajan, initially a general a bit similar to Eisenhower, the Roman empire reached its largest extent (Trajan ruled from 98 CE to 117 CE). Where did Trajan get his ideas? Trajan ingratiated himself with the Greek intellectual elite, including historians such as Plutarch and Dio (who was recalled to Rome). Be it Athenian leaders such as Pericles, or the kings of France in the Twelfth or Fourteenth centuries, massive progress was directly attributed with civilization class intellectuals interfacing directly with the leaders: the edge of civilization is one, top thinking allow it to cut. (De-cide means, exactly, to cut-off!)

Starting in the Sixth Century, the Merovingian Franks (ruling France and Germany, and soon, all of Europe) made secular education global, mandatory, and non-profit. Secular education became a function the government imposed on the Churches (the Pope got infuriated in vain). Later more government in the Middle Ages imposed more functions: not just free universities, but free health care, taking care of abandoned babies, no questions asked.

The “small government” movement championed by Silicon Valley monopolists inverts all this: students pay something like a third of the median family income, to attend the “public” university of California in tuition alone (not counting room and board). Meanwhile top plutocrats in the USA have earned hundreds of billions from the private healthcare system of the USA (and then claim to be democrats, and give to the “Democratic” Party which enabled their lucrative activities…)

Facebook & its ilk want to cut all that government down, so that they instead, are the oligarchy: the few (oligo) who rule. They have already achieved that status, hence their insolence and impudence. If Teddy Roosevelt were around, he would mount his white charger, and arrest them all at gunpoint, for violating anti-monopoly laws.

As The Guardian observes: “Obsessing about a universal basic income as the panacea for the shortcomings of the labour market of the future is a distraction from tackling the problems in the labour market of today.” Well, that’s exactly why they obsess: it’s very self-serving: the plutocrats want slaves.

Not just that, but the plutocrats’ obsession with self-serving issues invites us all to obsess with them on the same issues, instead of asking why is it that they pay so little taxes, have so much power, are constantly received by ephemeral power holders, have bent the tax code to serve themselves, name hospitals after themselves, made deals with spy agencies to “open backdoors”, and all sorts of deals which are rumored about in Silicon Valley, etc

***

Bigger Civilization, Bigger Government:

It’s no coincidence that the biggest civilizations had the biggest (and best) governments: Sumer, Egypt, Babylon, Achaemenid Persia, Rome, China, France…

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/synthesis-found-governmentalism/

When we consider the progress of civilization over the last 4000 years, we observe an ever greater power of just, fair, balanced, and intelligent government. However, Zuckerberg’s operation is none of this: it’s just a one man show. Put a representation of part of the anatomy of a human female chest, Zuck will get you banned. The guy is that dumb. And that’s why he wants to rule the world.

Sonia Sodha concludes: “We should be fighting for a society in which everyone has the right to a decently paid job that provides them with autonomy and fulfilment; not a future in which a big chunk of the population is consigned to exist on meagre state handouts. At best, a universal basic income is a dangerous diversion from how to improve the quality of work. At worst, it could be an enabler for the dark motives of the Silicon Valley tech scene. We’d be naive to buy into the idea that the owners of the robots would happily carry on paying the rest of us a basic income if it no longer suited them. Karl Marx would be turning in his grave at this fundamental misunderstanding of how economic power works.”

Zuckerberg himself is an epiphenomenon, like a flake of snow shining on top of the iceberg of the inversion of all values, which has led to a stalling of civilization and endangerment of the biosphere. The cult of The One is the ultimate form of intellectual fascism. It has led to tax-free monopolies in the global economy, but it was preceded by a cult of celebrities… even in science, and other intellectual domains, where only a few, the stars, get funded well.

It’s as if Usain Bolt’s starting line was ten meters ahead, noticed the scientific journal Nature in “Our obsession with eminence warps research“: “We can quantify exactly how much faster Usain Bolt is than the next-fastest sprinter. It’s much harder to say who is the best scientist, let alone how much better they are than the next-best scientist. Deciding who deserves recognition is, at least in part, a judgement call.”

It’s even harder to find out who the best thinkers are, and what the best thinking is. However, what we have now is plutocrats and their lackeys dominating the debate. There is not even an independent intellectual class, as most intellectuals in academia are on the take, or know they should have a low profile. Superstars dissenters tend to be all barking up the wrong tree (although The Guardian essay quoted above is a good sign).

A fundamental democratic right in Ancient Greece was isegoria. The right to speak equally. It is massively manipulated nowadays. The ownership of all media by the plutocratic class has led to a situation where lowering taxes on the hyper-wealthy has become “bipartisan”, and earning one thousand dollar a year is “especially gratifying” in the eyes of those earning billions a year, and they can then advertise their “love of man” and flaunt their pledges to give billions, well, you know, someday…

All these self-important tax cheating, conspiring monopolists at the teat of governments, worldwide, deserve out contempt. Really, not kidding: New York Times bans me. Who is the greatest holder of common shares of the NYT? Carlos Slims, scion of a plutocratic Mexican family. How did he become for a while the world’s richest man? Because Mexican government officials conspired to offer him Mexican Telecom at rock bottom prices. No doubt: they were well rewarded.

Now we see these government connected billionaire punks, going around the world in their personal jumbo jets, paying their way through government, media and academic circles, to mold decisions in their favor. And what of all the CO2? What of the greatest biological extinction now apparently forming and accelerating?

They don’t care: as they circle the globe in their CO2 spewing jumbo jets, billionaires and their obsequious political butlers suck entire iceberg in the maw of the global warming they generate, and it’s their friend, because they profit from disaster (be only as a distraction from their ill deeds…)

We are facing an inversion of all civilization, and even the biosphere. Plutocrats and their ideology are the prophets of the extinction of all values, and of all worth.

Patrice Ayme’

EURO CHEAT: German Hidden Banks Subsidies Destroy Europe!

April 2, 2017

More generally, the collapse of the European economy is caused by too much economic “liberalism”, while the rest of the world does the opposite, by providing strategic state help. This dichotomy happens within the Euro zone itself, where Germany found a trick to provide stealthy government help.

Abstract: The collapse of industrial production in France, Italy and Spain, while it soared in Germany, under the Euro regime, has a simple technical explanation. Using bankrupt banks, Germany subsidizes massively its industry. However, under vicious European Union rules, Germany insists that countries other than Germany do not get any STATE subsidies… while Germany enjoys them quietly. This cannot be allowed to go on.

The existence of a, de facto, common currency is nothing new in Europe: it was practiced during most of the last 2,000 years. It is a drastic economic advantage. Thus, so it should be with the Euro. However the present unfair and imbalanced German practice is unsustainable. The solution is for the rest of Europe to get state help, just as Germany, Japan, China, the USA and the UK (massive quantitative easing and other interventions), and also India, do: extend state subsidies to non-German Euro nations. (Either by creating banks similar to the bankrupt state supported German banks, as used to exist in France, or by some other subsidies…)

Several facts can be observed: first that the fossil fuel countries, Canada, US, Australia, did pretty well, thanks to their smothering of the planet in compensation for them making lots of money (figuratively or not). Second, that the Euro has become a Germany-first, a über alles Germany device. As I explained, that’s caused by bankrupt banks, which can lend to small, crucial industries, while being fed by state subsidies…

***

French presidential elections are 3 weeks away. Marine Le Pen wants to leave the Euro, and the European Union (however, she also intent to change to a Swiss-like system of plebiscites, so she would submit any big change to these). Marine Le Pen was received both by Putin and the presidents of Chad and Lebanon.

Many opinion leaders have clamored for years to destroy the Euro, such as the well-known establishment propagandist Paul Krugman. Except for howling together, the reasoning is not obvious. The anti-Europeans’ basic argument is that various economies need to devalue their currencies at different rates, because otherwise they won’t change.

On this site Picard 578 and Lovell said:”The problem of the Euro is its existence”. I disagree: common currencies are very advantageous, but this one has a poisonous hook inside.

***

Past Currency Problems: Rome, China, Europe:

It is true that the gigantic Roman empire ran into a currency problem, characterized superficially both by dearth of fiduciary currency and inflation. One reason was the weakening of the application of Roman Civil law by centuries of fascism. Another is that, like China, the Romans did not have enough precious metals (anymore: they had exhausted the mines).

The Franks solved both problems: they yanked law enforcement from the Roman Catholic bishops, re-establishing good old fashion cruel punishments for malefactors: currency counterfeiters were slowly boiled to death, alive, in special long cages where they slowly cooking twitching bodies could contribute to leaving a lasting impression to the obtuse masses.

The other way the Franks solved the problem of precious metals was by conquering Eastern Europe, something the Romans (except for imperators Caesar and Trajan) had not even envisioned. There were abundant silver mines in Eastern Europe. (The Chinese solved, sort of, their currency problem with paper currency. That lasted seven centuries, until collapse of the Yuans under hyperinflation. The Ming and Manchus got Bolivian silver from Bolivia, through the Philippines held Spain.

***

Common European Currencies Never A Problem:

When there is no common currency, there is no common trade..Clearly common currency collapse contributed to the fall of the Rome of the Third and Fifth centuries, and the Roman Catholic bishop government of around 400 CE. The same holds for the Yuan. The Chinese used cumbersome copper as precious metal, or potentially worthless paper. When people cheated with currency in 400 CE Rome, the local bishop from the local plutocratic family, would admonish them. Six centuries later, the Franks had them bathe in boiling water, wine or oil.

Charlemagne was actually Roman EMPEROR. The currency system he refurbished had existed for 8 centuries and would exist for centuries more. Although various mints did various things, there was interoperability of the coins.

The Franks did re-establish the Roman currency, both by ferocious enforcement of the law, and by making the coins themselves more valuable (by augmenting their precious metal content).

From 650 CE to 1000 CE, temperature increases of the Middle Age Warming and the re-establishment of a stronger state (very strong in 800 CE, when the Roman empire was officially “renovated”, much more fragmented later in West Francia) brought more than a doubling of the population of Europe (from 18.5 million to 39 million). In spite of all the disturbances and massacres caused by invasions of rabid, voracious, pitiless Saracens, Vikings and Magyars.

Although West Francia (present day occidental two-thirds of France) was cut up in 60 local states (some duchies, some counties, some free cities, some church states), after the death of emperor Charles the Bald, counterfeiters were boiled all over, and thus (roughly) the same currency worked in northern Germany, Rome, or Austria.

I insist on this for good reason: the government of Roman bishops of 400 CE had decided, as the good Christians they were, not to apply the death penalty anymore for highwaymen. Result: the currency became extremely fake, and the road extremely unsafe. Too much goodness leads to too much crime for civilization to keep on operating. This is what the government of bishops of 400 CE proved (at the same time, realism forced the bishops to agree to let the Franks receive military control of three Roman provinces, including Gallia and Germania).

Charlemagne was Imperator Romanorum (Emperor of the Romans, approved by Constantinople, Oriental Rome). The Franks viewed Rome as “renovated”, but the fact is Roman civil law, Roman roads, and Roman currency had survived the collapse of the Roman state in the Fifth century (when it was progressively replaced by the imperators/elected kings of the Franks). The Belgian historian Pirenne suggested that it is the rise of the Muslim Caliphate which really caused a problem. That’s pretty much obvious as Islam was explicitly contrived to destroy the Greco-Roman state, promptly conquered more than half of it, by the sword, in 80 years, and then embargoed the rest!

In any case, the pure gold Roman Solidus was still used in 1000 CE, and the basic coin was still the Denarius (pfennig, penny, French “denier”). England, not yet part of the empire in 800 CE was still part of the currency system. Although England had 70 mints then, the English penny paid two-third of one basic worker’s day, same as on the other side of the Channel. As it took months to travel across Europe, the fact that there were many local mints does not mean that the (“Renovated”) Roman currency could not be viewed as global.

Charlemagne was the first Roman emperor who was officially sacred by the Pope. Hence the notion of “Holy” Roman empire, which surface several centuries later. By 1500, a common central European (Holy Roman-German currency) appeared: the Thaler (hence the word “Dollar”). The Thaler was used for nearly four centuries… until 1873, when Bismarck’s imperial maneuvering eradicated it…)

Europe had common currency before: the Thaler, covering Mittel Europa, lasted four centuries.

The Euro and EU intervention in economy is well beyond just having a common currency. For example it prevents to re-establish order in Africa, because France does that, France then gets punished for it in diverse ways, including by having not enough money for the rest of her economy. The proper usage would be to subtract France/Europe defense from deficit computations and, more generally, spending.

In particular money and plotting should have been spent as needed to establish a proper democracy and state backing it up, in Libya. Same for all subsahelian countries (Mali, Chad, etc.)

***

Germany Banking Subsidy Trick:

Thousands of medium German banks are crucial to finance the “middleling” German companies (of the “Mittelstand”) which produce crucial equipment for larger companies (say specialized brakes for fancy cars, or specialized LED lights used in characteristic German cars like my own). Such companies can then evolve and produce in a very protected, stable environment, favorable to apprenticeship.

It is a good system.

Too bad other countries are not allowed to have one too. To have one, other countries would have to massively invest, in full, enormous catastrophic deficit mode, before then going-on in a chronic deficit mode (as Germany presently does).

Weirdly, I am the only one to talk about this.

By the way, China’s local communities (sometimes cities with 25 million people…) do the same as Germany: massive deficit spending to sustain massive local industrialization. Right, the Chinese system is suffering from terminal debt. However, the fact is Chinese industry is thriving and expanding worldwide (Example: a Chinese drone company has a contract for taxi drones in Dubai, to operate in a few months…).

Meanwhile, French industry has collapsed, most governmental help being outlawed by European institutions (which did not discover the German trick therein described…) 

Thus General Electric, saved by 60 billion dollars from Obama, was able to swallow its French competitor, with Brussels’ benediction… That was helped by US “Justice” condemning said French competitor to a billion dollar fine, for… alleged corruption in Indonesia… The European Union has prevented its actors to act dirty. Except for those, like Germany, which play dirty.  

Goodness is always last to play dirty, by definition. However, if goodness never plays dirty in the end, goodness will be devoured by badness, malefaction. Voltaire recommended that we “ought to crush infamy”. That means not turning a blind eye towards those who exploit the rest of the world, just because we are good, and aspire to goodness. Now more than ever.

Patrice Ayme’

Plutocracy: Epigenetics, Not Just Wealth And Democide

December 12, 2016

CHOMSKY FINALLY AGREES WITH PATRICE AYME: AMERICAN DREAM DIED BECAUSE OF PLUTOCRACY… But Chomsky does not go as far as using the word. And that makes him, and his devoted followers, miss the EPIGENETICS OF EVIL. Thus they complain about the fleas, not the wolf carrying them:

***

America did not start as a plutocracy in the sense of an extremely wealthy class ruling. Jamestown was like that, but was it was a tiny hamlet fortress. Then England, wrecked by civil wars and revolutions, lost control of its American colonies until the 1700s. Attempts to make Lord Penn the ruler of Pennsylvania ended up in the American Revolution. Washington, Jefferson, and Al. were very wealthy and somewhat satanic, as they held slaves, but they were small fry relative to European plutocrats, who were much wealthier, and much more satanic.

And on it went. The Confederacy was to some extent a plutocratic revolt centered around the idea of buying, selling and abusing people as if they were chicken: it failed.

The first US billionaire was Carnegie. Carnegie was far left, advocating 50% tax on the wealthy, and punishing estate taxes. His widely advocated ideas brought a mood conducive to the passage of the anti-trust act under President Teddy Roosevelt. 

Inequality Fosters Plutocracy, The Rule, Not Just Of Wealth, But evil & Bad Genes

Inequality Fosters Plutocracy, The Rule, Not Just Of Wealth, But evil & Bad Genes

So when did the US democracy go bad? JP Morgan, a banker, escaped the anti-trust thrust.   Dr. Schacht, a German banker cum economist joined the Dresdner Bank in 1903. In 1905, while on a business trip to the United States with board members of the Dresdner Bank, Schacht met the famous American banker J. P. Morgan, as well as U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt. Schacht  became deputy director of the Dresdner Bank from 1908 to 1915. Meanwhile, when Wall Street collapsed in 1907, JP Morgan “bought all of it” (or at least a big part of it), bringing the market around.

By 1914, US plutocrats, and the racist president Wilson, conspired with the Kaiser, enabling the Kaiser to hope to destroy his enemy, the French Republic. That magnificent plot backfired on Germany when Great Britain declared war to the Kaiser within days of its attack on France.

But it did not backfire for the USA: the US supported the Kaiser for three years with ammunition components, etc., while the UK and France piled up debts to the USA. More exactly, US plutocrats made a fortune, while putting the UK and france in their debt.

In 1919, US plutocrats made it so that German fascists could have another go at the French Republic. Meanwhile, the US requisitioned giant amounts of German private property, then transferred that to US plutocrats, finishing the deal by burning the records of these transactions, in a highly convenient blaze. I am not joking: the cause of the burning of the Commerce Building on January 10, 1921 was never determined: rats, smoking were excluded, and electric wires kept new and perfect. The fire started in the file room, was all over in a couple of minutes, and lasted five hours.

In any case, the US became the de facto overlord of the so-called “Weimar Republic” (the official name was “Second German Reich”; Hitler changed it to “Third German Reich” in 1935). That enabled US plutocrats (some of them Jewish) to turn around the US antitrust law.

The symbiosis between Nazism and US plutocracy was total, including the latter giving birth to the former. Dr. Schacht was central in this (and that’s why he was judged and exonerated, as one of the top 24 Nazi war criminals in 1945 at Nuremberg).

To win the war, the US became, de facto, a sort of social democracy. It slowly went back to plutocracy when Nazi operators and collaborators such as the Dulles brothers, took control of the USA in the 1950s. A quick learner and follower, R. Nixon, became president in 1969, setting up the HMO system, while making an alliance with the Chinese dictatorship.

Ford, Carter, Reagan, ramped up the plutocratic pressure. The dam broke under Clinton, who actually dismantled the MOST IMPORTANT legislative piece of president Franklin D Roosevelt’s long presidency: the Banking Act of 1933 (“Glass Steagall”).

The Deep State, suitably plutocratized then established a number of evil corporations which were used as intelligence agencies (internally and externally). This is when Sheryl Sandberg was parachuted from the Treasury Department where she was the official girlfriend of Lawrence Summers (successor of R. Rubin, ex- Goldman Sachs chair) to Google and then Facebook (she will meet with Trump Wednesday).

Inequality grew.

***

Chomsky, A Crow On Its MIT Branch, Crowing Lugubriously:

That was for the causes. Chomsky started to condemn the “financialization” of the USA for the acceleration of inequality in 2013, under Obama (Patrice Ayme explained that it was caused by the abrogation of the Banking Act, already more than 10 years ago; Chomsky vaguely describes, Patrice explains…).

Here is Chomsky’s latest description: “The ‘American Dream’ was all about class mobility. You were born poor, but could get out of poverty through hard work and provide a better future for your children. It was possible for [some workers] to find a decent-paying job, buy a home, a car and pay for a kid’s education… It’s all collapsed — and we shouldn’t have too many illusions about when it was partially real… The so-called American Dream was always based partly in myth and partly in reality.” Chomsky said, noting that Americans are losing their hope due to “stagnating incomes, declining living standards, outrageous student debt levels, and hard-to-come-by decent-paying jobs.”

“The inequality in the contemporary period is almost unprecedented. If you look at total inequality, it ranks amongst the worse periods of American history… However, if you look at inequality more closely, you see that it comes from wealth that is in the hands of a tiny sector of the population…

The current period is extreme because inequality comes from super wealth. Literally, the top one-tenth of a percent are just super wealthy,”

Chomsky describes. One of my trusted commenters asked me recently what I thought of Chomsky. A philosopher is not just a botanist. A philosopher would explain. Chomsky also avoid to use the concept of “plutocracy”. He describes it, he describes how wealth, being powerful, grabs power.

***

Plutocracy, Epigenetics of Evil:

However, that comes short. Very short. Chomsky does not dare to cross the semantic Rubicon of calling it for what it is, the genetics of evil.

This is why Chomsky clings to the idea that the American Founders debated what is at stake now. Now, they did not: the Internet has changed everything, starting with the minds, the moods, hence the genes, or the genetic expressions, to be a bit more precise. We know that fishes in a changed environment, change genetically. Females can become not just males, but super males.

Plutocracy is not just the rule of wealth. We know, from studying epigenetics in other species, that animal behavior influences genetic, let alone neurohormonal expression.

The absolute power of enormous wealth does not just corrupt absolutely, it corrupts genetically.  

Complaining about the fleas is good, but seeing the wolf carrying them, better. Wisdom is not just about seeing, but doing it better.

Patrice Ayme’

Obama, Clinton: Stealthily Regressive

November 2, 2016

So much lying! So much naivety! Oh Blah blah! Obama! Obamacare! Obama cares not: yes, GDP of the wealthiest, the .1% has been growing. But, in truth, Clinton and Obama were the most stingy presidents of the last 66 years. Far from being progressives, they were the top two regressives and regressors. Here is the graph:

Clinton And Obama Were The Less Progressive Presidents In 66 Years

Clinton And Obama Were The Less Progressive Presidents In 66 Years

I do not expect the insulting fanatics who worship Clinton and Obama to understand the preceding graph. Let me explain a bit more for the others.  The graph above looks at United States government purchases of goods and services. It looks at the purchases at all levels: local, state, and federal. Such purchases are, actually buying real stuff, and work, in contradistinction with transfer payments like Social Security and Medicare.

[Why was there a decrease around 1950? Because of super giant spending due to the Second World War, just prior; after that enormous spending, a retrenchment was in order. However, notice that President Ike brought up spending to 25%! Thus, if one makes, say a five-year rolling average, Clinton and Obama are the lowest in Net Government Investment since… President Hoover; that was 83 years ago; and even Hoover did the Hoover dam, and much more. One can advantageously consult “Wealthcare Endless Summers“.]

Obama has been far from presiding over a huge expansion of government the way he himself and the right-wing, Neoconservative fanatics who now support Hillary Clinton, claim. As a matter of fact, Obama presided over unprecedented austerity, in part driven by spending cuts at the state and local level. Thus it is an astounding triumph of misinformation and disinformation that lackluster economic performance since 2009 has been interpreted as a failure of government spending. Let’s zoom in on Obama’s first term:

Obama Cliamed He Was A Big Spender. Instead, He Spent Big Only On His Friends, The Plutocrats, Soon To Provide Him With Beaucoup Bucks

Obama Cliamed He Was A Big Spender. Instead, He Spent Big Only On His Friends, The Plutocrats, Soon To Provide Him With Beaucoup Bucks

Here it is, massaged differently:

Clinton And Obama, By The Measure Of Annualized Growth Of Real Government Spending, Were The Two Most Conservative US Presidents

Clinton And Obama, By The Measure Of Annualized Growth Of Real Government Spending, Were The Two Most Conservative US Presidents

[Source: Economist View.] So now the hysterical ones on the pseudo-left tell us that Hillary Clinton is not at all like Clinton, Bill, her husband and Obama, her supporter. It is indeed likely: Clinton says she will spend more in education and infrastructure. How much she can deliver with a hostile Congress, is something else. However, Trump has clamored for more government spending since ever. Trump lambasted the decrepit infrastructure of the USA while Obama (and Clinton), in chief command, did nothing about it.

I have said that government spending should be massively  augmented, for years. (But intelligently augmented, a big but, not a big butt!) Even Krugman, the Clinton sycophant, has joined my long held opinion. Here he is, in August 2016:

Time to Borrow, by Paul Krugman, NY Times: …There are, of course, many ways our economic policy could be improved. But the most important thing we need is sharply increased public investment in everything from energy to transportation to wastewater treatment.

How should we pay for this investment? We shouldn’t — not now, or any time soon. Right now there is an overwhelming case for more government borrowing. …

First, we have obvious, pressing needs for public investment in many areas. … Meanwhile, the federal government can borrow at incredibly low interest rates: 10-year, inflation-protected bonds yielded just 0.09 percent on Friday. …

Spending more now would mean a bigger economy later, which would mean more tax revenue…, probably be larger than any rise in future interest payments. And this analysis doesn’t even take into account the potential role of public investment in job creation…”

In any case, no president did worse than Obama, except for skirt-chaser-thanks-to-government-clout Clinton. Would the Clinton of the future be different from the Clinton of the past? Hillary hysterics foam at the mouth, and assure us, that such will be the case. However, as many called me a racist, xenophobe, fascist, hater of Muslim People, Trump lover and even less flattering term, in public, on the Internet in recent days, I now strongly doubt that they are capable of informed judgment.

Yes, be it Hillary or President Trump, real government spending will grow. Both from what they said, and who they are (Trump is a builder used to take loans and invest rather profitably). But also because, after eight years were Obama “signature achievements” consisted in bombing weddings in Yemen, in “signature strikes”, and deploying the health plutocrat friendly (think Buffet) Obamacare, real government spending could not be any lower.

Or then, it was a farce: consider the US government spending on Elon Musk (a South Africa born entrepreneur). If Trump is elected, SpaceX is gone in a year. And so it will be all over: watch Amazon go down in flames. Yes, I do finance heavily my local bookstore, and yes I purchase only two books once at Amazon. Nobody os perfect.

But those who say that Clinton and Obama were progressives, are either liars or ignorant, or cruel, or all the preceding. It is one thing to no be perfect. It is another to wallop in error: to persevere in error is diabolical, the Romans said (“perseverare diabolicum”).

Again, look at this:

I invest Nothing For You People, Becausae You Are Unworthy. Call Me Progressive, Like The Annaconda Who Progressively Squeezes

I invest Nothing For You People, because You Are Unworthy. Call Me Progressive, Like The Anaconda Who Progressively Squeezes

[Notice the dearth of spending under Clinton. Pelosi-Bush invested, until last 3 months of 2008, when Pelosi-Obama signed on Bush’s Sec. of Treasury Paulson’s plan. Pelosi-Obama invested in plutocrats thereafter (mostly, although there was a small genuine ‘stimulus’ which worked wonders).]

I expect feeble minds and cultural retards to not understand such a graph. They will probably revert to insults. And I do not expect them to understand what this means for analyzing the reasons for the frantic support of the Obamas for Clinton. You see, ultimately, investing is a zero sum game, in the instant: the US government did not invest, because all its discretionary money went to plutocrats. And this is why the Main Stream Media, held by plutocrats, is so anti-Trump. Trump, who is one of them, plutocrats, know very well where the investment streams are going. If Trump wants a bigger name, and he does, he will have to divert them, towards We The People. And all and any president, but for Clinton, did this, investing in the USA, better than Obama did. Since president Hoover.

In retrospect, those who wanted progress, at least by the measure of investing in the country, should never have voted for Clinton or Obama. How can one hope that the creature closest to them would be any different?

Patrice Ayme’

Brexit Idiocy In One Picture

July 11, 2016

Hard core Brexit idiots pontificate that they will renew their ties with the British Commonwealth and the USA. As if the quaint British monarchy imported from the Netherlands had anything in common with the hyper violent, domineering American republic, a country of immigrants, a world country, the world’s hyper power, which can purchase anything… but a soul, and a past it is ready to admit it had. The proud British are, relatively speaking, Europeans, and they don’t even know it.

Here is the European situation, the web of relationships, with the spider in the center, depicted with the most basic mathematics, set theory. I present to you the spider and the fly:

The Situation Is Even More Complicated Than That: Switzerland, For Example, Has More Than 600 "Bilateral" Treaties With The European Union, And Has To Respect Free Circulation Of European Citizens.

The Situation Is Even More Complicated Than That: Switzerland, For Example, Has More Than 600 “Bilateral” Treaties With The European Union, And Has To Respect Free Circulation Of European Citizens.

[Nota Bene: the GDP numbers above, due to the tremendous immigration of people and capital into the United Kingdom, the UK, due to the laxity of France and Germany, brought an extreme overvaluation of the British Pound, and a swelling of all things British. This house of cards is collapsing: British GDP has now shrunk below French GDP, in barely more than two weeks…]

Switzerland voted against the Free Circulation Of European Citizens, including Croatians, in winter 2014. Some sanctions were applied by the EU on an aghast Switzerland, the next day. However, Switzerland still has to accept everybody. Should it change that requirement, Italy, France and Germany would block the borders, and let Switzerland die. Really, not kidding: Switzerland has only one refinery, producing 25% of Swiss fossil fuels, and it gets all its raw petroleum through a pipeline, from Marseilles, France… Thus, Switzerland will have to vote again. Or learn to ride horses again.

Why is such ferocity welcome in enforcing European unity and free circulation? Simple: Enforcing cogent, fully informed reason upon, and by, We The People, is the best way to avoid war. Thus war tends to happen when unexpected.

Europeans have bent over backwards frantically for twenty years to accommodate increasingly crazed, selfish, grotesque, hypernationalist British demands.  The British thanked the rest of Europe by an insulting vote. (Remark: the Swiss referendum was just about refusing the diktat of free circulation of any EU citizen; it was NOT about rejecting the 666 treaties with Europe… Although of course, it could have this consequence… Nor, a fortiori, the European Union )

Right now Europe is suffering from three mentalities:

  1. The first problematic mentality was English sabotage. The English entered the “ever closer Union” and decided it was just a free trade “club”. Basically NAFTA. That was a lie, a breach of trust, and a betrayal. No wonder so many European leaders are keen to get Brexit done. For twenty years, English governments have prevented the built-up, in-depth of European laws and institutions. Instead of electing the head of the European Administration (“Commission”)  directly, by the People’s vote, one still uses the ancient system of nomination by the heads of governments. That sort of undemocratic blockage was the work of English Europhobes, mostly.

Fanatic Brexiters insist they never voted for a European “Superstate”. That is not just a total lie, but it means they want Europeans, and their ex-colonies and present allies, to be ruled by Superstates (USA, Russia, India, China).

2. The second problematic mentality is the fact that the European defense system is mostly operated by the French Republic, which is supposed to pay for it, while leaving its deficit below 3%. Logically, French tanks should first roll through Brussels, Luxembourg, Belgium, Lichtenstein, while addressing an ultimatum to Eurozone member Ireland, and force all these miscreants to pay taxes. (Since Germany has the same problem as its sister republic, France, it would rather applaud the usage of force… which is exactly what both of them did, with the help of Italy, to pressure Switzerland that way… It helped that the latter was not a founding member of the EU, and a rather small fish.)

What about the refugee crisis? Well, go back 17 centuries: the Goths, fleeing the Huns, invaded the Roman empire. Initially, the Goths came as refugees, and were allowed in. Later, even more Goths, now fully armed, came in, and thew Roman Empire said no. The solution? Have an army strong enough to kill the Huns. This was finally done in France, 80 years alter. First the inhabitants of Orleans inflicted a defeat on the Huns, inside the city itself. Then the Franks shadowed and harassed the retreating giant host of the Huns. That gave enough time for the Roman Field army headed by Aetius and to the Visigothic army to join the fray. Then the Huns got crushed in the titanic battle of the Catalaunian Plain. Having suffered tens of thousands of dead, if not hundreds of thousands (the number 300,000 has been advanced by sources), the spirit of the Huns was broken. Just as that of the Nazis in May 1945.

That was how to handle Assad: destroy him and his family, occupy Syria, re-establish secular, republican order. And it was not to the Russians or the Americans to do that, but to the Europeans. But there is no European army, no European will. Just European wealth for the world to steal. And for this, the ectoplasmic Britons are much to blame.: did they not learn anything from the Kaiser and his spiritual son Hitler?

As a result of formidable austerity imposed on France, the French defense system is woefully insufficient, although not quite as moribund as the British one. This is a grave situation in several ways: first it weakens the West enormously. Secondly it makes the USA more dominant than ever in defense. And thus, it augments the aura and diplomatic might of the USA in all matters, including the economic one… which pays for defense.

3. The third problematic mentality is indeed austerity itself. It was imposed by a coalition of conservatives and the evil influence of the ruling plutocracy. Great Britain saw less of it, thanks to the plutocratically owned tabloids, and the fact that plutocracy has made the wealthiest in Britain so much wealthier. Austerity is no less than a complete plutocratic plot, and a direct consequence of not taxing the wealthiest enough to spare us being in their debt.

So deep has the propaganda been for the plutocrats whom have made us in their debt, that only now the German SPD seems to realize that austerity is a plot of the wealthy. The “S” in SPD is for “Social”: Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD… The SPD is in coalition with the German Conservatives, who are white-hot, foaming at the mouth demanding ever more austerity (especially from other Europeans… It’s understandable as Germany is in a virtuous circle presently…)

Brexit can potentially break that logjam. First, British sabotage of the “Ever Closer Union” will stop. Appropriate superstate structures could now be erected, as needed… Secondly, the austerity party in the EU, right now led by Britain and Germany, is going to be halved. Thus one can hope that the French, these austerity specialists since 1932, will snap out of their madness, and lead a revolt against the austerity party. Simple: the European Union has just do what the USA has done under Obama. The Federal deficits amounts to something around 100% of US GDP (if one adds Quantitative Easing, an unusual addition, not usually made for obvious, vicious reasons, to the official deficits).

Will Europeans understand this?

Meanwhile, it’s fun to see the Brexiters struggle with the spider web above. Good luck coming out, to sink in the ocean…

Patrice Ayme’

 

Economics As Science: Quesnay, Not Smith

July 7, 2016

Where it is revealed that Adam Smith was Quesnay’s Feeble Student…

Faithful Anglo-Saxons love to evoke Adam Smith and Ricardo, who are famous British economists.

Adam Smith is viewed as the first temple of economics, inventor of the free market. And that is the first set of deep mistakes. First, there was never any free market, ever since there are tribes, and they are governed. Even a government of pirates has laws. Which its market obeys.

Second, Adam Smith was actually a student. All right, we all are, but some of us do like Einstein, and get “their” main ideas somewhere else. They are not the ultimate creators. Ultimate creators are the ones worth pondering: their reasons are always deeper and more interesting than that of their parrots.

Adam Smith went to France, and learned from the physiocrats. The most prominent physiocrats were towering personalities. One, Turgot, became France’s Prime Minister (under Louis XVI), another was king Louis XV’s surgeon and “first doctor” (so economy was a love of his, as it was with the philosopher who named and founded economics, Xenophon. Lovers tend to think better than those paid to think correct thoughts).

What was the idea of physiocracy? Well, it’s in the name: the power of nature. Physiocracy views economics as an application of the laws of nature, hence its great reverence to agriculture. 

Mercantilism Is Much Smarter Than This Sorry Abstract Puts it. Physiocracy Insisted That Nature, Not The Sovereign, Should Guide Economics. True, But Naive...

Mercantilism Is Much Smarter Than This Sorry Abstract Puts it. Physiocracy Insisted That Nature, Not The Sovereign, Should Guide Economics. True, But Naive…

As The Economist put it at some point: “If YOU asked twenty well-educated souls to identify a physiocrat, only a couple could help you out. Writers like A.R.J. Turgot, the Marquis de Condorcet and Francois Quesnay are not household names, unlike Adam Smith or David Ricardo. But they are important. According to one late-19th century historian, the physiocrats (who called themselves the “économistes”) created “the first strictly scientific system of economics”.

Adam Smith was half the age of Francois Quesnay when the latter instructed the former (43 versus 72). At the time, intellectuals from Britain and France heavily influenced each other, to the point theater has been written about them. The phrase laissez-faire, coined by fellow physiocrat Vincent de Gournay, came from Quesnay’s writings on China

Some say that physiocracy was a theory of wealth. In this reduced vision of physiocracy, the physiocrats, led by Quesnay, believed that the wealth of nations was derived solely from the value of agriculture. In that parody, Quesnay’s understanding of value-added was rather primitive—he could not see, for example, how manufacturing could create wealth. But that is certainly not true, as Quesnay greatly admired the Chinese universal education system, and its vaunted examinations producing mandarins who ruled the empire (without aristocracy).

Moreover, as Quesnay was France’s top doctor, he could not possibly believe that there was no added value in science and medicine. Quite the opposite. Quesnay, Louis XV’s esteemed friend, was called by the king, “my thinker”. Quite a compliment, as another friend was Voltaire. So that physiocrats believed in agriculture alone is a parody.

Farmers certainly produced wealth. To quote Karl Marx in “Das Kapital”, “the Physiocrats insist that only agricultural labour is productive, since that alone, they say, yields a surplus-value”.

The physiocrats are most commonly known for these most simplistic economic ideas which do not reflect their subtlety. Indeed these parodies are not their most important contribution to economic thought. Rather, it was the physiocrats’ methodological approach to economics that was revolutionary.

Before physiocracy, economics was not viewed as a scientific discipline, but rather a strategic one (this is what is called “mercantilism”). Mercantilist thinkers sometimes assumed that amassing gold, or military power was the best economic strategy… And indeed, it often was. Economic efficiency was irrelevant.

But Quesnay was a scientist (for most of his life, he was a surgeon, trained with the best, who then, at age 50, became an official medical doctor). And Quesnay wanted to apply the scientific principles of medicine to the study of economy. The “Tableau Economique”, which shows in a single page how an entire economy functions, and the abstruse book which contained it, is Quesnay’s most famous contribution.

Quesnay,an immensely respected figure, showed that the economy was something to be respected, analysed and understood—much like a human body. It could not simply be moulded by the will of a monarch (or government, or a bunch of know-nothing aristocrats).

This was a hugely important step forward. The elder Comte de Mirabeau, father to the main leader in the first few months of the Revolution, before an untimely death at age 40, considered Quesnay’s Tableau to be one of the world’s three great discoveries—equalled only by the invention of printing and the discovery of money. As The Economist says:

Familiar notions of contemporary liberal economics, laissez-faire, the invisible hand, etc. derive from Quesnay’s scientific approach. The physiocrats, like many other thinkers of the eighteenth century, believed in “natural order”. They showed that unchanging laws governed all economic processes. Consequently, it is generally thought that the physiocrats were opposed to government intervention: the dead hand of the state would only corrupt the natural evolution of the economy.(but, as Quesnay’s admiration for the Chinese governmental system based on erudition, and for Confucius, and Quesnay’s de facto appartenance to the government shows, that’s another nefarious Anglo-Saxon parody). T. Jacob Viner, a Canadian economist, referred to the physiocrats as one of the “pioneer systematic exponents” of laissez-faire… Alongside with Adam Smith.

But the root of physiocracy was much more general. Adam Smith was the student.

Why is the preceding important? First it destroys the Anglo-Saxon hubris that the Anglo-Saxon culture invented modern economic theory and practice. And that it succeeded because of it (whereas the proper application of gunnery has more to do with it).

In truth, it is quite the opposite. When Louis XIV, the self-flattered “Sun King” took control of the state, he discovered, to his dismay, that France had only twenty (20) major capital ships. England and the Netherlands each had one hundred (100). Each.

Why?

Because the Netherlands and England practiced the exact opposite theory to Physiocracy (which would be created in name a century later). The Great Powers, starting with the Imperium Francorum, Francia, and, seven centuries later, Portugal, Spain, etc., practiced Mercantilism, or how to create economic opportunity with big armies and then, big guns. And you know what? Right now the super states of the USA, China and Russia are practicing Mercantilism, while Europe practices Physiocracy. Obama has turned out to be a major practitioner of Mercantilism. Mercantilism has been his main activity. Europeans have not understood this at all.

Guess who is winning?

Patrice Ayme’

Corrupt CEOs & Their Evil Boards

May 6, 2016

Plutocracy is a global phenomenon. It is worldwide, and it integrates fully religious extremism, which is part of its arsenal. The corporate board of Renault-Nissan is made of CEOs of other corporations. The board decided that Carlos Goshn, its CEO, deserved 15 million euros in 2016. Never mind that 54% of the shareholders voted against it. Never mind that the French government, which holds 16% of the shares of Renault-Nissan was outraged by it. In this world, CEO boards and their CEOs are a church of their own, ruling the world.

CEOs and their boards argue they are exceptional, irreplaceable, and they could get a job somewhere else. However, many in France dare to now point out that if such is the case, they should be fired, go get their job somewhere else, and that many in France are trained, willing and capable of replacing them and playing CEO for much less money.

Notice That The Ratio Between CEO & Workers Salaries Exploded Up Under The Clintons. Just As Corporate Profits Exploded Up Under Obama, Higher Than Ever (Why Taxes On the Wealthy Peaked Down To Lowest Ever).

Notice That The Ratio Between CEO & Workers Salaries Exploded Up Under The Clintons. Just As Corporate Profits Exploded Up Under Obama, Higher Than Ever (Why Taxes On the Wealthy Peaked Down To Lowest Ever).

(For exploding up corporate profits, consult my “Doomed Dems“, and the Federal Reserve Economic Data graphs therein. Confronted to catastrophic, anti-democratic evolutions under their reigns, the Clinton-Obama crowd of “leaders” and “advisers” and sycophants, always accuse the Republicans. If “Republicans” are always in charge when “Democrats” rule, why to vote for the latter?)

Extravagant CEO salaries convey the mood that extravagant inequality should rule the world. That the world cannot function without extravagant, horrid inequality.

In truth CEOs are not as important as engineers. In France, a musician and engineer found a way to 3D PRINT a violin similar in sonic quality to the proverbial “Stradivarius”. The 3D printed violin is lighter, stronger, and is made in one part, so it does not have parasitic sound generated by the junctions between different parts (as in traditionally made violins).

Meanwhile in California, in a university lab, after years of trying, a researcher and her colleagues found a way to coat the nanowires used in Lithium batteries, which allows said batteries to cycles 200,000 times before a diminution of function (something which happens after 7,000 cycles in existing batteries.)

Also in California, a French professor (now in Berlin) and her UC Berkeley colleague found a revolutionary gene selecting technique.

Such individuals are the real creators. They are the hard-to-replace persons. They are also the sort of people, inventors, creators, thinkers, we need, as the biosphere threatens to go up in smoke.

Extravagantly high CEO pay not a question of “capitalism”, or “offer and demand”: in the graph above one can see that CEOs used to paid much less, relative to the average workers. And it was the same for all celebrities, including in sports and acting. Still “capitalism” was doing just fine. Actually, private capitalism was then a larger part of the economy.

Thus the rise of the mood conducive to high CEO, and other celebrities’ salaries has nothing to do with the “invisible hand” of the market. Instead, the mood of high CEO salaries is synchronous with the rise of plutocracy (lower taxes on the richest, maximal tax avoidance enabled for the richest, influence of the richest on politics, etc.).

So what is going on?

Moods make the ground from which ideas grow. Outrageous salaries for boards and CEOs make the mood more favorable to plutocrats.

An example: nowadays, major plutocrats like the kings of Saudi Arabia and Morocco, or the Sultan of Turkey, finance ideologies in countries such as Belgium. More precisely, those plutocrats finance the ideology known as Salafist Islam (which is supposed to strangle Islam, the way it used to be in Belgium, for generations, namely low key, Belgian state financed, Sufist).

Thus one sees that the rise of Islamism is actually related to the rise of CEO salaries. And this ties up to “climate denial”, as major plutocrats and their corporations support the latter. Facing the plutocratic phenomenon, one is confronted to a high dimensional metastasis of the soul. Celebritism and CEO salaries are part of it. No wonder that it is hard to treat, and beat back plutocracy: acting punctually here, or there, displaces the problem, instead of treating it.

One speaks of globalization. Left unsaid is that this is globalization of evil.

Patrice Ayme’

Doomed Dems

May 4, 2016

So Donald Trump will be the Republican committee (;-)) for the presidency. And Trump will, probably, be elected US president. Why? Because people want change, and they did not get it. Instead they got more of the drift down, after the reign of the teleprompter reading president. Average family income is DOWN $4,000 since (“Bill”) Clinton’s last year as president. According to a FOX News poll, 64% of Americans blame Wall Street. Meanwhile in a vast report in the New York Times, Obama celebrates, in May 2016, the alliance he said he made with Wall Street in 2008.

Obama Can Make All The Excuses He Wants: He Gave Money To TBTF Banks, Not To We The People. And Here Is The Result Of This Wall Street President.

Obama Can Make All The Excuses He Wants: He Gave Money To TBTF Banks, Not To We The People. And Here Is The Result Of This Wall Street President.

Corporate profits have been rising, and wages have been declining. The following graph is from the FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data). Since the mid 1970s, wages have gone down 7% while corporate profits went up 7%. The average board member of an S&P 500 company works 250 hours, and gets $250,000 (more than $800 an hour).

Wages Are Going Down, Because Pluto Profits Are Going Up. And Other Pluto Policies

Wages Are Going Down, Because Pluto Profits Are Going Up. And Other Pluto Policies

[Profits and Wages are as function of GDP above. Wages in red, corporate profits in blue. Notice the huge jump of corporate profits after Obama became president, and while he and the demonic Dems had total control of the US Congress, and the US Senate. Obama and his Dems can accuse the Republicans all they want, they are accusing reality. The reality is that they, and not the Republicans, did it.]

Warren Buffet is a hero, for many Americans. He bought Heinz (using money from Brazil’s 3G Capital: did you hear about corruption in Brazil?), and fired 600 workers. Then Buffet merged Heinz with Kraft, and another 2,500 workers got the axe. Buffet made ten billion dollars out of these two operations, 3,000 workers lost their livelihood. However, trust him, Buffet will give it all back, after he is dead (so he clamors to all MSM propaganda outfits, which religiously repeat that, as if it were the word of god).

But back to our other hero, the one who feels unappreciated. President Bush called Candidate Obama, and told him to come inside the White House, to take his orders from Secretary of the Treasury Paulson. Obama, feeling honored, obeyed, and did just like Paulson (ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, and a possibly brain damaged professional football player) told him to do.

Now Obama feels underappreciated, although he should be appreciated, he insists, because he exhibited such great “bipartisan”.

But that is precisely the point: Americans are starting to appreciate less Wall Street and its servants. Americans are getting tired of “bipartisanship”: half professional politician, half Wall Street. Soon average Americans will even see that multigenerational Harvard families are the problem. It feels to them increasingly like a conspiracy is going on, just like Trump says, again and again:”the system is wrong, I know, I was part of it”. And you know what? It is.

“I know a lot of Americans are angry about the economy, and for good cause,” Hillary Clinton said, February 11, 2016. “Americans haven’t had a raise in 15 years.”

So why not Trump? After all, the great leaders of the Democratic Party are often incomprehensibly wealthy (with fortunes in the hundreds of millions of dollars: the Clintons, Pelosis, Feinsteins, Bowles, etc.). And their financiers, those who tend to finance them and are explicit supporters, are among the planet’s richest people. Most of them are more or less involved in government for their business (for example, here is the latest: NASA is now giving help, for free, for Elon Musk’s Space X to go to Mars: it will be interesting to see if Trump pursues these policies of tapping public institutions for making particular plutocrats and their corporations ever wealthier).

Trump got rich from inheritance, and then building things. The plutocrats connected to, or inside, the Democratic Party seem to be rather into other sorts of deals: Feinstein’s husband set-up deals in China (wait until Trump gets on that blood trail!)

In other words, people who vote for the Democratic Party have been trumped. (Originally, in the 1500s, “trump” in English meant exactly what it means in French to this day: lied to.)

People already voted for change eight years ago (when they selected Obama over his conservative rivals). Unfortunately, all the change Obama brought was none at all. (Very recently Obama started to do little progressive things, like taxing the rich a bit more, or his clemency project: too little, too late.)

The big picture with Obama was conservative, not progressive. Obama pursued what Bush did: giving money to the biggest banks. I am not saying it should not have been done, but what was needed is what Hoover (yes, Hoover) and Roosevelt did in the 1930s: a massive stimulus program (instead Obama did a short, small stimulus program; the stimulus of the 1930s extended, overall, for more than 25 years, as it extended into WWII, and then into the “Cold War”.

Under president Hoover, masterpieces such as the Chrisler and Empire State Buildings, and the Hoover dam (across the Colorado, and still watering Las Vegas) went up, some of them in a matter of months. Roosevelt ordered the construction of an unbelievably massive armament program, the construction of 24 fleet carriers (Japan would start a world war with 10).

Obama, long an admirer of Reagan in economic matters, reduced the taxes on the hyper rich by 20% in his first mandate (then brought them back up, the rather trite story of the arsonist who douses the fire later, while posing as a great hero…) The idea was to stimulate the rich, so they stimulate you.

All what We The People Who Vote are going to feel increasingly like, is that Obama was Bush III, or Clinton III-IV. Indeed, where was the “Change We Can Believe?” Yes, none at all. It was all the way down further.

Meanwhile a friend of mine went to Yosemite ten days ago. She told me she could not believe the devastation of the forest. Most of it is fiery red. It is devastated by the Pine Bark Beetle. To kill the Beetle, one needs twenty days well below freezing. However, this hard freeze is now a memory. So the Beetle invades, and kills forest. Treating tree by tree is hopelessly expensive, and futile. Yes, the forests will burn soon, adding to CO2 in the atmosphere. And it is all the way like that to Alaska.

Fort McMurray, Alberta may not have seen the worst of a devastating wildfire.

Massive walls of flames prompted authorities to order the evacuation of all the city’s more than 80,000 residents last night. The blaze has been caused by un-naturally high temperatures. Such giant fires are our immediate future. Nobody said the Greenhouse crisis was going to be nice. More evacuations coming.

These are not normal times. Ever since the universe was seen expanding, and, like the all-seing eye, we have contemplated possibilities we never dreamed of, we have come to realize that the world was in our very large hands (even larger than Mr. Trump’s hands…). Obama had very small ambition. Just like the Clintons, he surrendered to Wall Street, preferring big bucks to come to the dreams of his father. Now Charles Koch, the notorious fossil fuel multibillionaire, and great influencer of US politics, is saying he may support Hillary Clinton (instead of Trump). All plutocrats sucking at the public teat, are scared stiff of Trump. As Trump himself observed, in his boldly introspective style: “They say, what is he doing? We can’t buy him!”.

At least, through all the smokes and mirrors (in which Obama admires himself), this has the merit of clarity. By choosing Hillary Clinton, the Dems will choose business as usual. But this is not business as usual. And, increasingly, through all the smoke and mirrors, people feel that way, all around the most advanced countries, from Siberia, to California.

Change means Trump or Bernie Sanders. Clinton will surely bring only doom, as she did, ever since she and her husband helped fellow traveler, and implicit mentor, president Ronald Reagan with Iran-Contra…

Patrice Ayme’

Economy: Moods Are Changing

May 2, 2016

“TROUBLE” WITH EUROPE? WHY NOT THE US?

New York Nobel economists viewed from Europe, or the US, as “liberal”, or “leftist” do not like Europe, nor do they understand that the USA’s superior economic performance is just something the Clinton crowd likes to crow about. When one looks inside, and compares, ain’t pretty. Joseph Stiglitz: The Euro is the Problem (April 14, 2016) https://youtu.be/30xfMtJZ6iY  http://bit.ly/24k2oC2  #video #lecture.

No, the Euro is not the problem. Actually, Europe just smashed growth forecasts. The problem is that Europe is managed by people from Goldman-Sachs, or who wish to be employed by Goldman-Sachs, or who have a high opinion of Goldman-Sachs, or by people who take advice from people affected by the preceding disease. (As usual, I use here “Goldman-Sachs” as a shorthand for the malevolent, parasitic “money changers”, as Roosevelt and the Bible called them, based mostly in New York and London, with state machinery at their beck and call).

European Productivity, Especially In Franco-German Euro Zone, Has Long Been Higher Than In the USA. So The Scorn Of US Economists Should Consider This Important Fact

European Productivity, Especially In Franco-German Euro Zone, Has Long Been Higher Than In the USA. So The Scorn Of US Economists Should Consider This Important Fact

Question to Stiglitz: Do you think any of the groundwork has been laid to reduce that inequality going forward?

Stiglitz: “We’re in a little bit of better place, but not a lot better. It’s obviously better to have 5 percent unemployment than 10 percent unemployment. And there’s been the beginning of a housing recovery that has helped restore some of the wealth of ordinary Americans. But the damage that has been done is very deep and has persistent effects. The labor force participation rate of people in their 40s, 50s, is still lower than it’s been in decades. People who lost their jobs in 2008, didn’t get jobs in 2009, ‘10, ‘11, maybe aren’t likely to get a job ever. If they do, it’s not going to be anywhere near as good as their old job. There are many people for whom they lost their job at 50 or 55 and are unlikely to ever work again. The scar is permanent.

Another aspect of what I would say is the imperfect recovery, is that the marginalized groups remain marginalized. And while they’ve benefitted, the levels of unemployment are still very very high.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/stiglitz-inequality/…

Entirely right, Mr. Stiglitz. So why do American economists give lessons to Europeans? The US economy is chugging along at 2% per annum, rather less than Franco-Germania at this point. And it can be argued that the inflation of the US GDP is mostly asset inflation.

When Stiglitz obsesses about unemployment, it’s obviously neither here, nor there: Unemployment is not the end-all, be-all, of the wellbeing of a socioeconomy. Slaves, in all and any economy, tend to be fully employed.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, unemployment is only 3%. However, a one bedroom rents for $3,000 a month, and that’s more than half the median family income (pre-tax). So is that good, or is that hell? I want you to contemplate a twenty lanes freeway, all gridlocked, and the eight lanes overpasses above, too, if you approve, Stiglitz style. (Jam augment GDP!)

Meanwhile, Trump is going parabolic in California, because tolerating the intolerable has become intolerable. Only when tolerating the intolerable becomes intolerable do revolutions happen. Maybe Trump should pick up Sanders as running mate, ha ha ha.

Revolutions are the engine of evolution. They re-unite Homo with the natural ethology from which plutocracy had torn him from. To evolve again, for the better.

Another editorial from Krugman along the same half-wit lines as Stiglitz: “The Diabetic Economy”. Krugman: “LISBON — Things are terrible here in Portugal, but not quite as terrible as they were a couple of years ago. The same thing can be said about the European economy as a whole. That is, I guess, the good news.

The bad news is that eight years after what was supposed to be a temporary financial crisis, economic weakness just goes on and on, with no end in sight. And that’s something that should worry everyone, in Europe and beyond.

First, the positives: the euro area — the group of 19 countries that have adopted a common currency — posted decent growth in the first quarter. In fact, for once it was better than growth in the U.S.

Europe’s economy is, finally, slightly bigger than it was before the financial crisis, and unemployment has come down from more than 12 percent in 2013 to a bit over 10 percent.

But it’s telling that this is what passes for good news. We complain, rightly, about the slow pace of U.S. recovery — but our economy is already 10 percent bigger than it was pre-crisis, while our unemployment rate is back under 5 percent.

And there is, as I said, no end in sight to Europe’s chronic underperformance. Look at what financial markets are saying.”

Children such as Stiglitz and Krugman have great oracles, called “markets”, and they “look” at what they “say”. (Beats saying what they look like, any day!)

Krugman: “Responding to critics of easy money who denounce low rates as “artificial” — because economies shouldn’t need to keep rates this low — [A Fed Reserve Bank governor] suggested that we compare low interest rates to the insulin injections that diabetics must take.

Such injections aren’t part of a normal lifestyle, and may have bad side effects, but they’re necessary to manage the symptoms of a chronic disease.

In the case of Europe, the chronic disease is persistent weakness in spending, which gives the continent’s economy a persistent deflationary bias even when, like now, it’s having a relatively good few months. The insulin of cheap money helps fight that weakness, even if it doesn’t provide a cure.

But while monetary injections have helped to contain Europe’s woes — one shudders to think of how badly things might have gone without the leadership of Mario Draghi [ex-Partner Goldman-Sachs, Patrice Ayme nota bene], president of the European Central Bank — they haven’t produced anything that looks like a cure. In particular, despite the bank’s efforts, underlying inflation in Europe seems stuck far below the official target of 2 percent.

Meanwhile, unemployment in much of Europe, very much including my current location, is still at levels that are inflicting huge human, social and political damage.

It’s notable that in Spain, which these days is being touted as a success story, youth unemployment is still an incredible 45 percent…”

For once, Krugman gets it half right. Right for Germany, but not for France, which has discarded the Euro 3% deficit spending limit, and is going at an official, near-British like 4.5% (official):

“The thing is, it’s not hard to see what Europe should be doing to help cure its chronic disease. The case for more public spending, especially in Germany — but also in France, which is in much better fiscal shape than its own leaders seem to realize — is overwhelming.

There are large unmet needs for infrastructure and investors are essentially begging governments to take their money. Did I mention that the real 10-year interest rate, the rate on bonds that are protected from inflation, is minus 0.8 percent?

And there’s good reason to believe that spending more in Europe’s core would have big benefits for peripheral nations, too.

But doing the right thing seems to be politically out of the question. Far from showing any willingness to change course, German politicians are sniping constantly at the central bank, the only major European institution that seems to have a clue about what is going on.

Put it this way: Visiting Europe can make an American feel good about his own country.”

Why is Krugman feeling so good? Because the US is “producing” three times more GreenHouse Gases (GHG) as the French? Not a non-sequitur, or just a slap in the face: the US expansion, in the last six years as largely been driven by fracking for oil and gas.

***

Patrice’s Grain of Salt: MOODS THEY ARE CHANGING:

The “trouble” in Europe is not just economic. A new philosophy, a new mood, is taking over. Monetary spending, what GDP looks at, is increasingly looked at as a sin. In France, exchange and repair Internet sites are booming. People increasingly repair the devices they use, and recycle and, or, exchange them for others.

Another point, well-known, is that, to re-establish the economy, banks were given money, lots of money. But the bank driven economy comes short. If anything, banks are viewed as organized crime institutions. In other words, people have had enough of the way the economy is organized.

Who needs a car, when public transportation, or the occasional rental will solve the problem? Some car companies sell electric cars, yet, when people need to go on a family trip, they can get a fossil fuel driven machine, which goes much further. The end result is to lower demand. This is also the effect of increasing efficiency. Solar cells on a roof kill a lot of the old economy, the more efficient they get.

The economy serves the society, not vice versa. Moods have to change to incorporate more of the society. A recent example: two professors working at UC BErkeley (one of them French), invented a revolutionary method to cut DNA into desired pieces. They applied for a US Patent. The US PTO sat on it: indeed, what could two women invent? Six moths laterr, a macho team of males from MIT applied for the same patent, for the same invention. Ah, males, thus pillars of society, said Conventional Wisdom. The MIT gentlemen (or is that horsemen charging, Genghis Khan style?) were immediately granted the Patent.

A lot of the economy organized according to the old mood is just organized thievery, or crime. Giving twenty trillion of dollars to the very same banks and connected financial types who organized the 2008 crisis is organized mismanagement of the economy to replenish the criminals. It would have been more just to give the money to We The People directly, instead of giving it to our oppressors. Ah, but it could not be done, because conventional economics prevent it.

Conventional economy right now is little more that the instauration of a feudal order. Malia Obama, eldest daughter of president Obama, will enter Harvard University. There the peers of Stiglitz and Krugman will teach her of the rightful place of the haves, and why it is just that they own the world. And the fault of the have nots, that they do not.

Malia’s present school is “Sidwell Friends School“, a “very exclusive” (as it self-defines) school. Her sister attends it too. Tuition is a modest $40,000 a year. So the two girls, together, cost $80,000, just to enjoy the “very exclusive” position they earned in life. That’s a third higher than US family median income, pre-tax.

It cost significantly more to attend the school where great liberal economist Stiglitz preaches from (Columbia). American economists are right to trash Europe. After all, the European model is the enemy. Should it win, American economists would earn just a fraction of what they presently get.

Patrice Ayme’