This is Paul Marks's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Paul Marks's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Paul Marks
Recent Activity
The 1990 Gun Free School Act actually encourages teachers (and so on) NOT to be armed. That is why schools are targets - as the "I may be crazy but I am not stupid" murderers know that they will have a target rich environment of unarmed (defenceless) people. "Then let us ban firearms over the whole country" - that is the de facto policy in Mexico (where the 1917 Constitutional right to armed defence has been regulated to destruction - with gun stores made de facto illegal and so on). Mexico has a vastly HIGHER murder rate than the United States - towns that are both sides of the Mexican-Texan border (with both sides of town being about equally hispanic) have murder rates some TEN TIMES higher on the Mexican side than on the Texan side. Whatever "saltire" believes - no regulation will prevent a determined murderer getting his hands on firearms, all regulations achieve is to make honest people defenceless victims.
1 reply
A very good article.
Toggle Commented Oct 23, 2012 on Compulsion works at THE LAST DITCH
1 reply
Paul Marks is now following Tom
Oct 23, 2012
Australian did not exist as a country till 1901. So if one wishes to talk about the 1860s it must be in the context of the colones if New South Wales, Victoria and so on. And their economic policies were NOT all the same - for example Victoria had higher import taxes than New South Wales did. However, the basic point remains - why are Keynesians complaining about an increase in the money supply? I am sure Keynesians could have found "unemployed resources" (including unemployed people) who a increase in the money supply would supposedly (magically) help. It is rather unlikely that a massive increase in the amount of gold is going to exceed the amount of "money" that a Central Bank can create (in a few seconds) by pressing buttons on a computer keyboard. So if Keynesians are now converted to a fear of gold being TOO LOOSE (too expansionist) for money - they should be utterly horrified by government fiat money. However, it is unlikely that a increase in the gold supply ON ITS OWN is going to lead to a boom-bust. It will certainly lead to INFLATION (indeed by a tradtional defintion of the term - an increase in the money supply IS inflation, whether prices in the shops go up or not). But inflation on its own is not a boom-bust. A boom-bust occurs when "broad money" (bank credit) gets wildy out of line with the "monetary base" - i.e. when bankers lend out "money" that NEVER REALLY EXISTED (try to lend out "money" at an a LOWER INTEREST RATE than real SAVERS would demand for their SAVINGS). Contrary to Lord Keynes book keeping tricks (by a Central Bank or by private bankers) are not "the same" as real SAVINGS - credit-money expansion is utterly different from real savings (see Hunter Lewis "Where Keynes Went Wrong" for this point). If there is more gold (because people are digging lots out of the ground) prices may go up (if the gold is increasing faster than the increase in the production of goods and services) but that (ON ITS OWN) is NOT a boom-bust. Only if with gold as money (or silver, or government fiat notes - or anything) bankers build a inverted pyramid of debt can a classic boom-bust occur. The "boom" being the expansion of credit money, and the BUST being the inveitable correction (which will come - sooner or later). Getting rid of gold does not prevent this - on the contrary it makes credit-money bubbles (i.e. boom BUSTS) BIGGER - vastly bigger. As does CENTRAL BANKING. Creating a Central Bank does not limit the size of banking credit bubbles - it is absurd for Keynesians (of all people) to imply that it does. The whole point of Central Banking is to EXPAND credit - to make the credit-money bubbles BIGGER. That is what Benjamim Strong (of the New York Fed) did in the late 1920s (thus showing that a gold STANDARD does not prevent government utterly perverting the capital structure with malinvestments) thus leading to the BUST of 1929 (the bust that came as such a surprise to Irving Fisher - just as the bust of 1921 had utterly surprised him, although "Austrian School" economists predicted both crashes, so much for "empirical" economics, so "empirical" it ignores evidence and learns nothing by experience). However, Alan Greenspan (without any gold STANDARD) did much the same thing as Benjamin Strong did - Greenspan did it for years in the run up to the 2008 bust (his support for credit money expansion made a the great BUST inevitable - time and time again Alan Greenspan "saved the world", i.e. saved the credit bubble, but he "saved it" by making it BIGGER AND BIGGER - thus making the eventual bust WORSE AND WORSE). And, of couse, B.B. (of only that stood for "Bilbo Baggins" - he would have more sense), is carrying on the monetary antics. He has not yet got to the stage of "throwing money from helecopters" (after all that would not profit bankers or other special interests), but B.B. has done everything short of that. All in a desperate effort to create a boom-let in order to reelect Barack Obama. Is that the sort of monetary system that Keynesians (and Chicago people) want? A monetary system based on POLITICAL WHIMS - where the "long term" in November 6th? Is that what you want? If the answer is "yes" then wait for 2013. If you think what happened in New South Wales (and so on) in the 1860s was bad (although did not the American Civil War rather disrupt the world economy in this period?) then wait for 2013. 2013 and 2014 (and onwards) in the United States (and the rest of the Western World)will make what happened in New South Wales (and so on) in the 1860s look like a picnic. Your credit bubble government fiat monetary system will be discredited - utterly discredited. Still at least the "mainstream" media (including dear Time magazine) will be destroyed by the economic collapse.
Agreed - especially as the historical memory is so short. For example, 80% (and rising) of industrial workers in Britain in 1911 were members of fraternal "Friendly Societies" in 1911 covering health care, old age and so on - yet every textbook (and television show and.....) assumes that the only alternative to copying Prussia was the Workhouse. There was no real income tax in Guernsey and Jersey till World War II - but now a 20% income tax (introduced as an emergency wartime measure) is regarded (by the vile "international community") as making these places evil "tax havens". As recently as the 1950s there was no real welfare state in the United States. There was a system of govenrment old age pensions (although at the start of the 1950s a lot of people were still not covered by it), and there was some (time limited) unemployment pay - but that was about it. No Medicare or Medicaid - no Food Stamps, none of the TRILLIONS of Dollars that are spent on the modern American Welfare State. Yet people were not dying in the streets (in fact there were less homeless than there are now) and, contrary to the propaganda, people were not turned away from hospitals. And all this was at a much lower level of economic development (due to a more primitive technological base) than exists today. Yet people know nothing of this - and assume that the American Welfare State is totally vital. They know as little of America under Ike as they know of Rome under the Emperor Nerva. It is astonishing. A lot of the growth of statism is fashion - it really is. For example, why did Andorra introduce government "insurance" (for health, old age and so on) in the 1960s? There was no need to do so - it was just fashion. Much as if someone said "Everyone else I know has got an S.T.D - so I must go and screw around till I catch one". Ditto with Switzerland and unemployment insurance (back in the 1970s) - no one was unemployed (before the introduced the new welfare), it was just (demented) fashion. The work of an "educated elite" - much the same people who broke the link between the Swiss Franc and gold (the last major country to have such a link) and have now chained Switzerland to a corpse, by linking Swiss monetary policy to the Euro. The people that ordinary folk should be able to look up to (the academics, the educators and so on) are the very people who misinform people - who distort everythihg. The media (and the political leadership) follows the lead of the education system people. And thus we are all dragged down.
Toggle Commented Aug 10, 2012 on In intellectual exile? at THE LAST DITCH
1 reply
Does it matter if you are not a "pure" libertarian? Surely what matters is that you want government to spend less, tax less and regulate less. As government takes up about half of civil society we are far from "anarchocapitalism" (or whatever) that we have to start from what where we are. As for President Bush, Prime Minister Cameron (and so on) - sadly they clearly had/have no real interest in making government smaller (indeed quite the contrary).
Toggle Commented Aug 10, 2012 on In intellectual exile? at THE LAST DITCH
1 reply
The Islamic Conference (and so on) could not have such influence on American policy just via the United Nations - not without another factor. The de facto allience with large factions of the American (and general Western) left. Not just the extreme left (the Marxists and Communal Anarchists - the Red Flag and Black Flag people), but the mainstream "liberal" establishment left. The people who have such power in the education system, the "mainstream" media, and the government bureaucracy itself. There as a few brave leftists (the late Christopher Hitchens was one) who refuse to cooperate with the Islamists - indeed oppose them in the strongest terms. But most leftists (including mainstream "liberal" leftists) have let their hatred of "capitalism" and the FALSE doctrine of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" destroy their judgement. The West is being destroyed from within (by the "treason of the intellectuals") at least as much as it is being destroyed from without.
Paul Marks is now following The Typepad Team
Dec 25, 2011