Forty Centuries of Failure: Price Controls, Debasement and Tyranny
August 15th was the anniversary of the infamous "Nixon Shock" which not only ended USD to gold convertability ("temporarily") - but also enacted a wage and price controls.
It set off "The Fiat Era" and began the inexorable process of grinding the middle class into dust.
When politicians tell you they want to be able to control prices, believe them - but what the public must understand is that for forty centuries, price controls have always meant serfdom.
It set off "The Fiat Era" and began the inexorable process of grinding the middle class into dust.
When politicians tell you they want to be able to control prices, believe them - but what the public must understand is that for forty centuries, price controls have always meant serfdom.
“We are developing, through technology, an ability for consumers to measure their own carbon footprint. What does that mean? That’s where are they travelling, how are they traveling? What are they eating? What are they consuming on the platform? So, individual – carbon – footprint – tracker. Stay tuned, we don’t have it operational yet, but it’s something we’re working on”.
The stage is set, when politicians tell you they want to be able to control prices, believe them – but what the public must understand is that price controls means spending controls.
The politicians will tell you that it’s all about putting “greedy CEOs” in their place.
What they won’t tell you is that price controls also means is telling you what you can or cannot eat, how you use energy – whether you’ll be permitted to travel, or make any other kind of economic decision or make any kind of value exchange that you used to take for granted.
Also see Eric Peters' latest observations Fencing Hogs:
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
I would actually prefer a system in which people managing society be not some random unqualified uneducated corrupt bums but people who are best qualified to do the job. However, in my humble opinion, there should not be anybody in charge of managing society, period. Society should be managed by a free market in a decentralized way without giving anybody special privileges. The people best qualified to do the job will naturally emerge in control and will be there until they are no longer best qualified. Also, they wouldn't need force to impose the control, it would be voluntary.
However, if Fauci was in fact an 'expert', that wouldn't give him any more rights and privileges than anybody else. He would just be more effective and doing whatever he is an expert in.
What is wrong with technocracy is not that experts are running things. It is that somebody is in charge involuntarily / by force. Clearly, having an expert in charge is better than some random idiot that the masses have voted for. Still, even better option by far is not to have anybody in charge at all. I agree with you, the free market (which is a decentralized algorithm) should be allocating resources.
Ayn Rand says “ There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist.”
Just saying that I don't understand something doesn't make it so. You have to show your work. Which part don't I understand?
That is what the Deep State wants for anyone who doesn't "follow orders."
i am looking at a good solar battery system now
i can get my panels out when needed, they are EMP protected now
plan is to have at least 500 watts of power, averaged over 24 hours, just in case
God help us.
Carter was a fool, well meaning, but a fool
biden was never qualified
ford likely got there for helping to cover up the JFK murder
I was under the false assumption Rockefeller was not tinged by the scandal.
Yet he was immediately replaced by Ford after Nixon resigned.
Agnew had resigned due to some scandal
Ford was approved by the Senate as VP
then later Nixon resigned
Rockefeller was Ford's VP
I should remember this, as it was the first election I was old enough to vote in.
to be sure.
i could not have told you who Ford's VP was if i had not
i really wish i was back in high school
we had to read a book on watergate and i'd have a LOT more to say on the subject now
how Nixon was screwed
He could have went down swinging, instead he went down with a whimper. Sad.
I've had my ass kicked more times than I can count, but I never went down without a fight.
That, and normalizing relations with China. Wonder how rich he got off that deal.
In a world of price controls, that’s over.
Throughout history, price controls have always brought about serfdom and tyranny because that is the only way to override individual incentives. In today’s highly wired world that would mean total technocratic feudalism."
The ultimate goal isn't feudalism. It's much more primitive than that.
What they're after is an unimaginable reduction of the earth's population, with just enough people kept alive as slaves to the elites.
And for all their talk about "greedy corporations", most of people who run them are in on it. They're Horace Bussby Mowen types; there are no Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden or Francisco d'Anconia types in the world anymore.
As Rand had Hank Rearden say at his trial, those who "choose to deal with men by means of compulsion . . .discover that [they] need the voluntary co-operation of [their] victims." "Refuse to be a victim."
2 other sources for encouragement are:
-- https://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php -- Eric Frank Russell's "And Then There Were None." Dated, but still a delicious example of "malicious compliance" and,
-- https://accordingtohoyt.com/ Nominally a sci-fi/fantasy/writers gathering place, but actually much more.
You're right, we need to visit flyover country.
The acceptance of this by the masses, even those that complain, means total enslavement. A few outliers who think and act on their own can easily be detected and dealt with, their example keeping the rest in line.
It doesn't matter who wins the election the result will be the same.
Is their ignorance of economics and history an asset?
How do they convince their victims into becoming ardent followers?
What do they know about us that we don't know about ourselves?
Based on economic illiteracy, Kamala should be a shoo-in to be elected president this November.
Of course, there is no free lunch, price controls will not solve the root problem.
You guys don't understand that without a free market in the area of services that the government provides, there is no way to naturally get rid of inefficiencies and corruption via bankruptcy. A monopoly organization (government/the state) imposed on society by law will eventually become corrupt and inefficient. Because government is not allowed to go bankrupt naturally, it will keep increasing prices (taxes) on its 'customers' until they cannot pay any longer and all their wealth is exhausted. Then, a collapse of the government commences and with it goes the society.
There is a simple solution to this problem: don't put a monopoly organization in charge of your society that can charge any price it wants for its services and that doesn't allow competitors. However, I think you statists will die of poverty and hunger before you will admit you were wrong about your misguided world views.
"You guys" and "you statists" doesn't apply to 99.99% of people posting here and you insult people who could be your allies.
This quote may apply:
It's better to remain silent and have people wonder about your intelligence than to speak and remove all doubt.
As I understand it, most people posting here believe that government/'the state' is needed to run society. I would define a statist as a proponent of that exact belief, an advocate of statism.
You, for example, believe that borders are needed. However, that implies a monopolist organization that would be in charge of enforcing the border. Everyone residing within would need to pay taxes to this organization in order to keep it funded. Anyone that refuses to pay would be seen as a free loader. I don't see how a stateless society can exist with the concept of a 'country' that has borders.
I tried hard to persuade you guys, but so far I didn't have much luck, even though my arguments seemed to have not been proven erroneous.
I'm not sure how I insulted anybody. Although the word 'statist' may carry a negative connotation in my view, it should not in yours. Calling you guys 'statist' is not really an insult, just a statement of an unfortunate fact. I did, however, express my sore dissatisfaction with the fact that your belief and preference for the existence of state keeps you from realizing that the state is the exact source of your troubles (debasement of money in this case).