newswars--2020-07-22--A Rising Demand for Money Won’t Save Us from Inflation

According to popular thinking , not every increase in the supply of money will have an effect on the production of goods .
For instance , if an increase in the supply is matched by a corresponding increase in the demand for money , then there will be no effect on the economy .
The increase in the supply of money is neutralized , so to speak , by an increase in the demand for money or the willingness to hold a greater amount of money than before .
What do we mean by demand for money ?
In addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the demand for goods and services ?
The demand for a good is not essentially the demand for a particular good as such , but the demand for the services that the good offers .
For instance , an individual ’ s demand for food is on account of the fact that food provides the necessary elements that sustain an individual ’ s life and well-being .
Demand here means that people want to consume the food in order to secure the necessary elements that sustain life and well-being .
Likewise , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the services that money provides .
However , instead of consuming money , people demand it in order to exchange it for goods and services .
With the help of money , various goods become more marketable—they can secure more goods than in the barter economy .
What enables this is the fact that money is the most marketable commodity .
Take , for instance a baker , John , who produces ten loaves of bread per day and consumes two loaves .
The other eight loaves he exchanges for various goods such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John ’ s ability to secure fruits and vegetables is on account of the fact that he has produced the means to pay for them , which are the loaves of bread .
The baker pays for fruit and vegetables with the bread he has produced .
Also , note that the aim of his production of bread , in addition to having some of it for himself , is to acquire other consumer goods .
Now , an increase in John ’ s production of bread , let us say from ten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to acquire a greater quantity and a greater variety of goods than before .
Because of the increase in the production of bread , John ’ s purchasing power has increased .
This increase in the purchasing power can not always be translated in securing a greater amount of goods and services in the barter economy .
In the world of barter , John may have difficulties securing the various goods he wants by means of bread .
It may happen that a vegetable farmer does not want to exchange his vegetables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John would have to exchange his bread first for some other commodity that has a much wider acceptance rate than bread .
John is now going to exchange his bread for the acceptable commodity and then use that commodity to exchange for the goods he really wants .
Note that by exchanging his bread for a more acceptable commodity John in fact raises his demand for this commodity .
Also , note that John ’ s demand for the acceptable commodity is not to hold it as such , but to exchange it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the reason why he demands the acceptable commodity is because he knows that with its help he can convert his bread production more easily into the goods he wants .
Through a process of selection , people have settled on gold as the most accepted commodity in exchange .
Gold has become money .
What It Means When the Demand for Money Increases An increase in the general demand for money , let us say on account of a general increase in the production of goods , doesn ’ t imply that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing with it .
The key reason an individual has a demand for money is in order to be able to exchange it for other goods and services .
Let us assume that for some reason some individuals ’ demand for money has risen .
One way to accommodate this demand is for banks to find willing lenders of money .
With the mediation of banks , willing lenders can transfer their gold money to borrowers .
Obviously , such a transaction is not harmful to anyone .
Another way to accommodate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banks to create fictitious money , i.e.
, money out of “ thin air ” —unbacked by gold—and lend it out .
Creating Money out of “ Thin Air ” Leads to Exchanging Nothing for Something Once employed in an exchange for goods and services , money created out of “ thin air ” sets in motion an exchange of nothing for something .
The exchange of nothing for something amounts to the diversion of real wealth from wealth-generating to non-wealth-generating activities masquerading as economic prosperity .
In the process , genuine wealth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their disposal , which in turn weakens their ability to grow the economy .
In contrast , when money is not generated out of “ thin air ” an individual who has secured proper money has exchanged something useful for it .
He then exchanges the money for something else : with the help of proper money , something is exchanged for something .
Once banks curtail their supply of credit out of “ thin air , ” this slows down the process of exchanging nothing for something .
This in turn undermines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sprang up on the back of the previous expansion in credit out of “ thin ” air—an economic bust emerges .
We can thus conclude that what sets in motion the boom-bust cycle is the expansion of credit out of “ thin air ” regardless of the state of the general demand for money .
Could a corresponding increase in the demand for money prevent the damage that the creation of money out of “ thin air ” inflicts on wealth generators ?
Let us say that because of an increase in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increases to the same extent as the supply of money out of “ thin air.
” Recall that people demand money in order to exchange it for goods .
Hence , at some point the holders of money out of “ thin air ” will exchange it for goods and the exchange of nothing for something will still occur .
Once money out of “ thin air ” is introduced into the process of exchange , it inevitably weakens wealth generators , undermining potential economic growth and also setting up the menace of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the expansion of the money supply is always bad news for the economy .
Hence , the view that an increase in money out of “ thin air ” that is fully backed by a corresponding increase in demand for money is harmless is questionable .

According to popular thinking, not every increase in the supply of money will have an effect on the production of goods.
For instance, if an increase in the supply is matched by a corresponding increase in the demand for money, then there will be no effect on the economy. The increase in the supply of money is neutralized, so to speak, by an increase in the demand for money or the willingness to hold a greater amount of money than before.
What do we mean by demand for money? In addition, how does this demand differ from the demand for goods and services?
Demand for Money versus Demand for Goods
The demand for a good is not essentially the demand for a particular good as such, but the demand for the services that the good offers. For instance, an individual’s demand for food is on account of the fact that food provides the necessary elements that sustain an individual’s life and well-being.
Demand here means that people want to consume the food in order to secure the necessary elements that sustain life and well-being.
Likewise, the demand for money arises on account of the services that money provides. However, instead of consuming money, people demand it in order to exchange it for goods and services.
With the help of money, various goods become more marketable—they can secure more goods than in the barter economy. What enables this is the fact that money is the most marketable commodity.
Take, for instance a baker, John, who produces ten loaves of bread per day and consumes two loaves. The other eight loaves he exchanges for various goods such as fruit and vegetables. Observe that John’s ability to secure fruits and vegetables is on account of the fact that he has produced the means to pay for them, which are the loaves of bread. The baker pays for fruit and vegetables with the bread he has produced. Also, note that the aim of his production of bread, in addition to having some of it for himself, is to acquire other consumer goods.
Now, an increase in John’s production of bread, let us say from ten loaves to twenty a day, enables him to acquire a greater quantity and a greater variety of goods than before. Because of the increase in the production of bread, John’s purchasing power has increased. This increase in the purchasing power cannot always be translated in securing a greater amount of goods and services in the barter economy.
In the world of barter, John may have difficulties securing the various goods he wants by means of bread. It may happen that a vegetable farmer does not want to exchange his vegetables for bread.
To overcome this problem John would have to exchange his bread first for some other commodity that has a much wider acceptance rate than bread. John is now going to exchange his bread for the acceptable commodity and then use that commodity to exchange for the goods he really wants.
Note that by exchanging his bread for a more acceptable commodity John in fact raises his demand for this commodity. Also, note that John’s demand for the acceptable commodity is not to hold it as such, but to exchange it for the goods he wants. Again, the reason why he demands the acceptable commodity is because he knows that with its help he can convert his bread production more easily into the goods he wants.
Through a process of selection, people have settled on gold as the most accepted commodity in exchange. Gold has become money.
What It Means When the Demand for Money Increases
An increase in the general demand for money, let us say on account of a general increase in the production of goods, doesn’t imply that individuals sit on the money and do nothing with it. The key reason an individual has a demand for money is in order to be able to exchange it for other goods and services.
Let us assume that for some reason some individuals’ demand for money has risen. One way to accommodate this demand is for banks to find willing lenders of money. With the mediation of banks, willing lenders can transfer their gold money to borrowers. Obviously, such a transaction is not harmful to anyone.
Another way to accommodate the demand besides finding willing lenders is for banks to create fictitious money, i.e., money out of “thin air”—unbacked by gold—and lend it out.
Creating Money out of “Thin Air” Leads to Exchanging Nothing for Something
Once employed in an exchange for goods and services, money created out of “thin air” sets in motion an exchange of nothing for something. The exchange of nothing for something amounts to the diversion of real wealth from wealth-generating to non-wealth-generating activities masquerading as economic prosperity. In the process, genuine wealth generators are left with fewer resources at their disposal, which in turn weakens their ability to grow the economy.
In contrast, when money is not generated out of “thin air” an individual who has secured proper money has exchanged something useful for it. He then exchanges the money for something else: with the help of proper money, something is exchanged for something.
Once banks curtail their supply of credit out of “thin air,” this slows down the process of exchanging nothing for something. This in turn undermines the existence of various false activities that sprang up on the back of the previous expansion in credit out of “thin” air—an economic bust emerges.
We can thus conclude that what sets in motion the boom-bust cycle is the expansion of credit out of “thin air” regardless of the state of the general demand for money. Could a corresponding increase in the demand for money prevent the damage that the creation of money out of “thin air” inflicts on wealth generators?
Let us say that because of an increase in the production of goods the demand for money increases to the same extent as the supply of money out of “thin air.” Recall that people demand money in order to exchange it for goods. Hence, at some point the holders of money out of “thin air” will exchange it for goods and the exchange of nothing for something will still occur. Once money out of “thin air” is introduced into the process of exchange, it inevitably weakens wealth generators, undermining potential economic growth and also setting up the menace of the boom-bust cycle.
Clearly, then, the expansion of the money supply is always bad news for the economy. Hence, the view that an increase in money out of “thin air” that is fully backed by a corresponding increase in demand for money is harmless is questionable.


newswars--2020-07-22--Three Reasons Representative Democracy Doesn’t Work

In representative democracies , voters ostensibly control the state through the politicians they vote for .
However , most representative democracies fall far short of this goal .
Three of the reasons for the trouble are the problems of scale , bundling , and omission .
I will explore these three problems below and argue that privatization and decentralization can ameliorate them .
The viability of meaningful political representation withers as the ratio of representatives to voters decreases .
There are 435 members in the House of Representatives in a country of 328 million people .
This means that each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 755,000 people .
How exactly does one person represent the federal legislative preferences of 755,000 diverse people ?
How do two senators embody the will of 600,000 Wyomingites , let alone all the Californians and Texans ?
Scale alone renders American democracy to a great extent meaningless , and yet this is almost never talked about .
The second problem with representative democracy is the issue known as “ bundling.
” Suppose candidate Smith is running against candidate Jones .
Smith has his policies , and Jones has his .
But what if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Smith ’ s policies and some of Jones ’ s ?
There is no picking and choosing Smith ’ s position on issue X and Jones ’ s position on issue Y as there is at a buffet or at the supermarket ( market institutions ) .
We ’ re left with rigid , take-it-or-leave-it , package deals .
Walter Block contrasts the flexibility of the market with ham-fisted democracy : The dollar vote occurs every day , the ballot box vote only every two or four years .
The former may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ product ( e.g.
, the Edsel ) while the latter is a “ package deal , ” an all or none proposition for one candidate or the other .
That is , there was no way to register approval of Bush ’ s policies in areas 1 , 3 , 5 and 7 , and for Clinton in 2 , 4 , 6 , and 8 .
People were limited to choosing one or the other in the last presidential election .
In society outside the state ( the market ) , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something you don ’ t want , or to go without something you ’ re willing to pay for .
And the free rider problem has been addressed here .
The third problem can be called “ omission.
” Presidential , gubernatorial , and congressional elections typically revolve around only a handful of issues .
But the state intervenes in nearly every aspect of our lives .
If candidate Smith and candidate Jones spend their campaigns battling it out over , say , the income tax rate , environmental regulation , and school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the voters who care about the central bank , the welfare state , foreign policy , the debt , etc.
?
Whenever the candidates agree on or simply ignore issues , as is necessarily the case for the vast majority of issues at stake in any given election , voting is largely useless in affecting these issues .
At best , the citizen can vote for the candidate they hope will better address the ignored topic ( in the event that it is addressed at all ) .
The problem of omission doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shunned by the bipartisan establishment .
It applies to topics simply not interesting enough to be prominent on the campaign trail : volumes of arcane regulation , obscure federal agencies , military bases people don ’ t know exist in countries they ’ ve never heard of , etc .
What Is to Be Done ?
Privatization .
Notice how none of the above critiques mention lobbying , fraud , or corruption .
Even if representative democracy were squeaky clean , it would be a mess .
Then , what is to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Functions , resources , and perceived moral authority currently held by the state can instead be distributed among its competing institutions : the nuclear family , the extended family , the church , businesses , fraternal organizations , private schools and universities , clubs , charities , etc .
The critical difference is that adults only participate in these institutions voluntarily and to the extent that they choose to , in contrast to their interactions with the state ( i.e.
, taxation , conscription ) .
This freedom of association encourages detailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward the people who finance and sustain them .
Additionally , decentralization can ameliorate the unresponsiveness of the state by increasing accountability .
The smaller ( both in terms of geographic area and population ) and more numerous the political units , the greater extent to which the rulers and the ruled are in the same boat .
If the political and bureaucratic decisions of Springfield are made by people living in DC , the decision-makers don ’ t need to live with the consequences of their own decisions to the same extent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s political decisions are made in Springfield , the politicians and bureaucrats will have to lie in whatever bed they make .
To a greater extent , if the rulers want to live well , their subjects have to live well .
Decentralization doesn ’ t just increase accountability .
When a political unit is geographically smaller and less populous , the people within it are more likely to have similar worldviews , cultures , religions , languages , etc .
Where there are mosaics of many tiny states , each state can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of each locality without forcing distant and different peoples to live under the same rule .
In contrast , enormous political units , by their sheer expansiveness , are more likely to encompass various bitterly opposed camps who will vie for zero-sum control of the same state apparatus .
Privatization and decentralization offer liberty , accountability , and harmony where the state offers phony representation and compulsion .

In representative democracies, voters ostensibly control the state through the politicians they vote for.
However, most representative democracies fall far short of this goal. Three of the reasons for the trouble are the problems of scale, bundling, and omission. I will explore these three problems below and argue that privatization and decentralization can ameliorate them.
Scale
The viability of meaningful political representation withers as the ratio of representatives to voters decreases. There are 435 members in the House of Representatives in a country of 328 million people. This means that each member “represents” an average of 755,000 people. How exactly does one person represent the federal legislative preferences of 755,000 diverse people? How do two senators embody the will of 600,000 Wyomingites, let alone all the Californians and Texans? Scale alone renders American democracy to a great extent meaningless, and yet this is almost never talked about.
Bundling
The second problem with representative democracy is the issue known as “bundling.” Suppose candidate Smith is running against candidate Jones. Smith has his policies, and Jones has his. But what if you, the voter, like some of Smith’s policies and some of Jones’s? There is no picking and choosing Smith’s position on issue X and Jones’s position on issue Y as there is at a buffet or at the supermarket (market institutions). We’re left with rigid, take-it-or-leave-it, package deals. Walter Block contrasts the flexibility of the market with ham-fisted democracy:
The dollar vote occurs every day, the ballot box vote only every two or four years. The former may be applied narrowly, to a single product (e.g., the Edsel) while the latter is a “package deal,” an all or none proposition for one candidate or the other. That is, there was no way to register approval of Bush’s policies in areas 1, 3, 5 and 7, and for Clinton in 2, 4, 6, and 8. People were limited to choosing one or the other in the last presidential election.
In society outside the state (the market), no one can force you to pay for something you don’t want, or to go without something you’re willing to pay for. And the free rider problem has been addressed here.
Omission
The third problem can be called “omission.” Presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional elections typically revolve around only a handful of issues. But the state intervenes in nearly every aspect of our lives. If candidate Smith and candidate Jones spend their campaigns battling it out over, say, the income tax rate, environmental regulation, and school vouchers, who will “represent” the voters who care about the central bank, the welfare state, foreign policy, the debt, etc.?
Whenever the candidates agree on or simply ignore issues, as is necessarily the case for the vast majority of issues at stake in any given election, voting is largely useless in affecting these issues. At best, the citizen can vote for the candidate they hope will better address the ignored topic (in the event that it is addressed at all).
The problem of omission doesn’t just apply to controversial policies shunned by the bipartisan establishment. It applies to topics simply not interesting enough to be prominent on the campaign trail: volumes of arcane regulation, obscure federal agencies, military bases people don’t know exist in countries they’ve never heard of, etc.
What Is to Be Done? Privatization.
Notice how none of the above critiques mention lobbying, fraud, or corruption. Even if representative democracy were squeaky clean, it would be a mess. Then, what is to be done?
The first solution is privatization. Functions, resources, and perceived moral authority currently held by the state can instead be distributed among its competing institutions: the nuclear family, the extended family, the church, businesses, fraternal organizations, private schools and universities, clubs, charities, etc.
The critical difference is that adults only participate in these institutions voluntarily and to the extent that they choose to, in contrast to their interactions with the state (i.e., taxation, conscription). This freedom of association encourages detailed responsiveness on the part of these organizations toward the people who finance and sustain them.
Decentralization
Additionally, decentralization can ameliorate the unresponsiveness of the state by increasing accountability. The smaller (both in terms of geographic area and population) and more numerous the political units, the greater extent to which the rulers and the ruled are in the same boat.
If the political and bureaucratic decisions of Springfield are made by people living in DC, the decision-makers don’t need to live with the consequences of their own decisions to the same extent. But if all of Springfield’s political decisions are made in Springfield, the politicians and bureaucrats will have to lie in whatever bed they make. To a greater extent, if the rulers want to live well, their subjects have to live well.
Decentralization doesn’t just increase accountability. When a political unit is geographically smaller and less populous, the people within it are more likely to have similar worldviews, cultures, religions, languages, etc.
Where there are mosaics of many tiny states, each state can be closely tailored to the particular preferences of each locality without forcing distant and different peoples to live under the same rule. In contrast, enormous political units, by their sheer expansiveness, are more likely to encompass various bitterly opposed camps who will vie for zero-sum control of the same state apparatus.
Privatization and decentralization offer liberty, accountability, and harmony where the state offers phony representation and compulsion.


newswars--2020-07-22--Watch: Russian Fleet Holds Massive Military Drills Off Crimea

The footage offers a glimpse of the land , naval and airborne elements of the Russian military that were involved @ @ @ @ @ troops of Russia ’ s Southern and Western Military Districts took part in a large-scale @ @ @ @ @ a surprise combat readiness check , the Russian Ministry of Defense has released a video @ @ @ @ @ this exercise , involving the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea .
The footage shows @ @ @ @ @ units making a display of their capabilities : while armored personnel carriers deploy from aboard @ @ @ @ @ sail in formation and test their guns , and combat aircraft soar in the sky @ @ @ @ @ more than 26,800 units of military hardware have been involved in the drills .
Alex @ @ @ @ @ are making their move to overthrow the will of the American people with a coup @ @ @ @ @ in motion .

The footage offers a glimpse of the land, naval and airborne elements of the Russian military that were involved in the drills.
As troops of Russia’s Southern and Western Military Districts took part in a large-scale military drills as part of a surprise combat readiness check, the Russian Ministry of Defense has released a video depicting depicting some aspects of this exercise, involving the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea.
The footage shows land, naval and airborne units making a display of their capabilities: while armored personnel carriers deploy from aboard a landing craft, warships sail in formation and test their guns, and combat aircraft soar in the sky.
Over 149,000 personnel and more than 26,800 units of military hardware have been involved in the drills.
Alex Jones breaks down how Democrats are making their move to overthrow the will of the American people with a coup that has already been set in motion.


newswars--2020-07-22--The World Is Drowning in Debt

The World Is Drowning in Debt

According to the International Monetary Fund ( IMF ) , global fiscal support in response to the crisis will be more than $ 9 trillion , approximately 12 percent of world GDP .
This premature , clearly rushed , probably excessive , and often misguided chain of so-called stimulus plans will distort public finances in a way which we have not seen since World War II .
The enormous increase in public spending and the fall in output will lead to a global government debt figure close to 105 percent of GDP .
If we add government and private debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trillion of debt , a global increase of over 35 percent of GDP , well above the 20 percent seen after the 2008 crisis , and all in a single year .
This brutal increase in indebtedness is not going to prevent economies from falling rapidly .
The main problem of this global stimulus chain is that it is entirely oriented toward supporting bloated government spending and artificially low bond yields .
That is the reason why such a massive global monetary and fiscal response is not doing much to prevent the collapse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most businesses , small ones with no debt and no assets , are being wiped out .
Most of this new debt has been created to sustain a level of public spending that was designed for a cyclical boom , not a crisis , and to help large companies that were already in trouble in 2018 and 2019 , the so-called zombie companies .
According to Bank of International Settlements , the percentage of zombie companies—those that can not cover their debt interest payments with operating profits—has exploded in the period of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the figure will skyrocket again .
That is why all this new debt is not going to boost the recovery ; it will likely prolong the recession .
Debt is neither free nor irrelevant , as interventionists want us to believe , even if interest rates are low .
More debt means less growth and a slower exit from the crisis , with lower productivity growth and a tepid employment improvement .
The often repeated argument that “ it would have been worse ” if these bailouts and spending plans had not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could have been done ” is easily rebuttable : the countries that will fall the least in 2020 , recover first , and do so with the lowest unemployment rates are the ones that have maintained prudent spending plans , preserved the economic fabric , and address the health crisis with serious protocols .
South Korea , Taiwan , Singapore , Austria , Switzerland , Sweden , Ireland , Luxemburg , the Netherlands…Many countries have not fallen into the trap of massive government spending , have delivered better health and economic results than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with lower levels of interventionism .
Many countries show that it is not necessary to cover the economy with enormous budget imbalances to guarantee health .
It is important to remember these figures of enormous indebtedness because of the disconnection between financial markets and the real economy , which has reached almost record levels and is presenting bubble-type features .
First , these huge stimuli are probably too big , too soon , and clearly geared toward sustaining low-productivity sectors .
All this is supported by a monetary policy that has gone from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asset bubbles .
The balance sheet of the European Central Bank has increased by almost €2 trillion so far this year and is already more than 52 percent of the eurozone ’ s GDP , much higher than that of the Federal Reserve , which is 32.6 percent of the US GDP , or the Bank of England , which is 31.1 percent .
The Bank of Japan ’ s balance sheet already accounts for 117 percent of GDP , and its consequences should be a warning sign to all nations .
Consumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country has been stagnant for two decades , with debt that will exceed 260 percent of GDP .
Copying Japan is the recipe for secular stagnation .
The huge increase in the balance sheets of central banks to artificially keep bond yields low has pushed stock markets higher just as 80 percent of listed companies have abandoned their business profit targets and analysts are slashing estimates for 2020 , 2021 , and 2022 at the fastest speed in the past decade , according to JP Morgan and Bank of America .
This enormous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented disconnect between the real economy and the stock markets .
The expansion of multiples has accelerated just as earnings estimates plummet .
By making sovereign bonds prohibitively expensive , two dangerous things happen : governments believe that low bond yields are due to their policies , and investors take much more risk than what they think they have in their portfolios .
All of this looks harmless if the bubble expands and the placebo effect works , but if macro earnings and employment data remain disappointing , the next crash may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it may add a financial crisis to the already weak economy .
Unfortunately , when the next crash happens , governments and central banks will tell us that more stimulus is warranted .

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), global fiscal support in response to the crisis will be more than $9 trillion, approximately 12 percent of world GDP.
This premature, clearly rushed, probably excessive, and often misguided chain of so-called stimulus plans will distort public finances in a way which we have not seen since World War II. The enormous increase in public spending and the fall in output will lead to a global government debt figure close to 105 percent of GDP.
If we add government and private debt, we are talking about $200 trillion of debt, a global increase of over 35 percent of GDP, well above the 20 percent seen after the 2008 crisis, and all in a single year.
This brutal increase in indebtedness is not going to prevent economies from falling rapidly. The main problem of this global stimulus chain is that it is entirely oriented toward supporting bloated government spending and artificially low bond yields. That is the reason why such a massive global monetary and fiscal response is not doing much to prevent the collapse in jobs, investment, and growth. Most businesses, small ones with no debt and no assets, are being wiped out.
Most of this new debt has been created to sustain a level of public spending that was designed for a cyclical boom, not a crisis, and to help large companies that were already in trouble in 2018 and 2019, the so-called zombie companies.
According to Bank of International Settlements, the percentage of zombie companies—those that cannot cover their debt interest payments with operating profits—has exploded in the period of giant stimuli and negative real rates, and the figure will skyrocket again.
That is why all this new debt is not going to boost the recovery; it will likely prolong the recession.
Debt is neither free nor irrelevant, as interventionists want us to believe, even if interest rates are low. More debt means less growth and a slower exit from the crisis, with lower productivity growth and a tepid employment improvement. The often repeated argument that “it would have been worse” if these bailouts and spending plans had not been implemented and that “nothing else could have been done” is easily rebuttable: the countries that will fall the least in 2020, recover first, and do so with the lowest unemployment rates are the ones that have maintained prudent spending plans, preserved the economic fabric, and address the health crisis with serious protocols. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands…Many countries have not fallen into the trap of massive government spending, have delivered better health and economic results than most nations, and have done so with lower levels of interventionism.
Many countries show that it is not necessary to cover the economy with enormous budget imbalances to guarantee health.
It is important to remember these figures of enormous indebtedness because of the disconnection between financial markets and the real economy, which has reached almost record levels and is presenting bubble-type features. First, these huge stimuli are probably too big, too soon, and clearly geared toward sustaining low-productivity sectors. All this is supported by a monetary policy that has gone from providing liquidity to being the enabler of asset bubbles.
The balance sheet of the European Central Bank has increased by almost €2 trillion so far this year and is already more than 52 percent of the eurozone’s GDP, much higher than that of the Federal Reserve, which is 32.6 percent of the US GDP, or the Bank of England, which is 31.1 percent. The Bank of Japan’s balance sheet already accounts for 117 percent of GDP, and its consequences should be a warning sign to all nations. Consumption has plummeted again in May and the country has been stagnant for two decades, with debt that will exceed 260 percent of GDP. Copying Japan is the recipe for secular stagnation.
The huge increase in the balance sheets of central banks to artificially keep bond yields low has pushed stock markets higher just as 80 percent of listed companies have abandoned their business profit targets and analysts are slashing estimates for 2020, 2021, and 2022 at the fastest speed in the past decade, according to JP Morgan and Bank of America.
This enormous action of central banks leads to an unprecedented disconnect between the real economy and the stock markets. The expansion of multiples has accelerated just as earnings estimates plummet.
By making sovereign bonds prohibitively expensive, two dangerous things happen: governments believe that low bond yields are due to their policies, and investors take much more risk than what they think they have in their portfolios.
All of this looks harmless if the bubble expands and the placebo effect works, but if macro earnings and employment data remain disappointing, the next crash may be worse than the economic shutdown, because it may add a financial crisis to the already weak economy. Unfortunately, when the next crash happens, governments and central banks will tell us that more stimulus is warranted.


newswars--2020-07-22--More Laws Mean More Police Brutality

More Laws Mean More Police Brutality

One of the most perplexing displays of cognitive dissonance this year is the strong support for a large state can be found within the various protest movements that are targeting the issue of law enforcement misconduct .
Logically , groups opposing police misconduct should also be strong supporters of the libertarian ideology .
However , this does not appear to be the case .
This movement , oddly enough , has quite a bit of overlap with support for gun control , the welfare state , and more regulation .
The central organization , Black Lives Matters , is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , communism , and other ideologies revolve around the strong or total domination of the state in everyday life .
The state , as defined by Murray Rothbard in Anatomy of the State , is an “ organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area.
” The way the state maintains authority within its jurisdiction is with the application of laws .
A law is defined as “ a rule of conduct or action prescribed…or formally recognized as binding or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a set of rules that either obligate or forbid action with a penalty for failure to comply .
While it may sound good to have a set of rules that individuals must adhere to and penalties to incentivize compliance , the nature of those penalties is where we run into issues .
While laws may have formally designated penalties for noncompliance , those penalties can be best viewed as a minimum sentence .
The maximum penalty for failure to comply with any given law is execution of the perpetrator .
While this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important to understand why this is the case and how law enforcement must resort to this .
Take a case of counterfeit money .
The sentencing guidelines for counterfeiting money are a sixteen-month minimum and in some states a fine with a maximum prison sentence of twenty years .
However , what if the accused refuses to show up in court ?
The court could then find the perpetrator guilty in absentia and apply the sentence and fine .
Should the person refuse to part with their resources or report to prison , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agent to collect the accused .
This is also what could happen should the accused refuse to show up for court itself .
And should the accused resist this arrest ?
This is where grievous bodily harm up to and including death can occur .
If you think this is hyperbole , this is exactly the situation that led to the death of George Floyd ; a twenty-dollar counterfeit bill and refusal to be taken into law enforcement custody .
The reason state agents resort to killing an accused for refusal to comply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the contrary by the state itself , there is no other way to ensure compliance with laws .
If the general public knows that the worst the state will ever do is send easily ignored bills in the mail for fines , then laws would never be followed and the state would collapse .
Because the state is an institution of violence , all laws must be backed with violence .
The state may be careful to conceal this reality , but the ultimate refusal of compliance is always a summary execution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is just a matter of numbers .
As the number of interactions with an enforcement agent increase , the number of instances of violent interactions will also increase .
If the odds of death from a single interaction remain the same , or even decline , this can be overwhelmed if the legal system expects greater instances of interaction with the general public through the application of more laws .
This can be demonstrated by the increasing number of death by legal intervention within the baseline white ethnicity in the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drugs , particularly after the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act .
Per a Harvard study , the rate of killings via legal intervention of whites in 1985 , the year after the US government decided to get tough on crime , stood at 0.28 per 100,000 .
By 2005 this number had risen to 0.37 per 100,000 , an increase of 32 percent .
The reason I used whites as the baseline is due to the high volatility in the black legal intervention deaths .
The underlying increase in the white death rate could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victimization rate should be even steeper than is reported now , but the overall impact is difficult to identify with other factors overwhelming the effects .
Further evidence that more law means more violence can be found in strong statist regimes .
Enforcement killings in regimes like Venezuela are significantly worse and large-scale executions have been used to ensure legal compliance in societies like Maoist China and the Soviet Union .
A society that believes it can solve all of its problems with the imposition of law will inevitably find itself engaging in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more aggressive the attempt at transforming society through legal imposition , the more aggressive the killing will be .
This is where the cognitive dissonance with the defund police movements comes into play .
The people who support eliminating police violence also regularly support the passage of new mandates , redistribution schemes , and regulatory impositions .
Without police , how do they think all these new laws and rules will be enforced ?
If taxation were a voluntary affair , few individuals would turn a substantial portion of their annual earnings over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun control were a suggestion , few people would make any effort to submit to the FFL ( Federal Firearms License ) sales regulations .
By advocating for more laws , rules , and taxes , these people are effectively advocating for an increase in police violence .
Abolishing the entity called “ police ” won ’ t solve the issue , since the state will inevitably have to form a new entity that does all the same things and has all the same powers .
Outlets like Vox can advocate for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mediators all they want ; these entities are , from the viewpoint of the state , toothless without any means to initiate violence to ensure compliance with rules .
Community mediators will either find themselves armed or calling on some newly created entity that looks and acts a lot like current police but is called something different to deal with a belligerent individual who refuses to follow the mandate .
As anyone with a glove box filled with unpaid parking tickets can tell you , it ’ s easy to ignore a piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The state is going to inevitably need an armed , violent agency to handle noncompliant individuals .
The only way to ensure an end to police brutality is not concocting new entities with different names or , worse , focusing on the ethnic element of it , as all that does is try and argue that police violence is fine so long as it ’ s dished out equally along ethnic lines .
The only way is to abolish the state .
Without a state , there is no state law .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t a need for enforcement by an entity that operates with the language of violence .
Without violent enforcement , there isn ’ t anyone getting killed for noncompliance .
Private structures have little incentive to kill noncompliant actors , and they are able to create stronger enforcement structures than state actors can .
Social ostracizing , ejection from business groups , or a ban from a shop would have an equally strong impact compared to the threat of violence .
Further , private security agencies that quickly utilize violence would find themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially if these agencies create the impression that they are against a particular group of potential customers .
As nice as it would be to believe that police can exist solely as a protection service , this isn ’ t the case .
There ’ s a reason they ’ re called law enforcement and not protective services .
The US Supreme Court has already definitively told us that our police agencies have no obligation to protect anyone .
Their only priority is enforcing the laws , and as those laws expand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interacting unfavorably with an enforcer will increase .

One of the most perplexing displays of cognitive dissonance this year is the strong support for a large state can be found within the various protest movements that are targeting the issue of law enforcement misconduct.
Logically, groups opposing police misconduct should also be strong supporters of the libertarian ideology. However, this does not appear to be the case. This movement, oddly enough, has quite a bit of overlap with support for gun control, the welfare state, and more regulation. The central organization, Black Lives Matters, is a fully Marxist entity.
Socialism, Marxism, communism, and other ideologies revolve around the strong or total domination of the state in everyday life. The state, as defined by Murray Rothbard in Anatomy of the State, is an “organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area.” The way the state maintains authority within its jurisdiction is with the application of laws.
The Nature of a Law
A law is defined as “a rule of conduct or action prescribed…or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority.” It is a set of rules that either obligate or forbid action with a penalty for failure to comply. While it may sound good to have a set of rules that individuals must adhere to and penalties to incentivize compliance, the nature of those penalties is where we run into issues.
While laws may have formally designated penalties for noncompliance, those penalties can be best viewed as a minimum sentence. The maximum penalty for failure to comply with any given law is execution of the perpetrator. While this sounds like hyperbole, it’s important to understand why this is the case and how law enforcement must resort to this.
Take a case of counterfeit money. The sentencing guidelines for counterfeiting money are a sixteen-month minimum and in some states a fine with a maximum prison sentence of twenty years. However, what if the accused refuses to show up in court? The court could then find the perpetrator guilty in absentia and apply the sentence and fine. Should the person refuse to part with their resources or report to prison, the court would then order an enforcement agent to collect the accused. This is also what could happen should the accused refuse to show up for court itself. And should the accused resist this arrest? This is where grievous bodily harm up to and including death can occur.
If you think this is hyperbole, this is exactly the situation that led to the death of George Floyd; a twenty-dollar counterfeit bill and refusal to be taken into law enforcement custody.
The reason state agents resort to killing an accused for refusal to comply is that, despite the verbal claims to the contrary by the state itself, there is no other way to ensure compliance with laws. If the general public knows that the worst the state will ever do is send easily ignored bills in the mail for fines, then laws would never be followed and the state would collapse. Because the state is an institution of violence, all laws must be backed with violence. The state may be careful to conceal this reality, but the ultimate refusal of compliance is always a summary execution.
More Laws Means More Violence
Police brutality, in a sense, is just a matter of numbers. As the number of interactions with an enforcement agent increase, the number of instances of violent interactions will also increase. If the odds of death from a single interaction remain the same, or even decline, this can be overwhelmed if the legal system expects greater instances of interaction with the general public through the application of more laws.
This can be demonstrated by the increasing number of death by legal intervention within the baseline white ethnicity in the United States in the aftermath of the war on drugs, particularly after the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act. Per a Harvard study, the rate of killings via legal intervention of whites in 1985, the year after the US government decided to get tough on crime, stood at 0.28 per 100,000. By 2005 this number had risen to 0.37 per 100,000, an increase of 32 percent.
The reason I used whites as the baseline is due to the high volatility in the black legal intervention deaths. The underlying increase in the white death rate could indicate that the improvement in the black victimization rate should be even steeper than is reported now, but the overall impact is difficult to identify with other factors overwhelming the effects.
Further evidence that more law means more violence can be found in strong statist regimes. Enforcement killings in regimes like Venezuela are significantly worse and large-scale executions have been used to ensure legal compliance in societies like Maoist China and the Soviet Union. A society that believes it can solve all of its problems with the imposition of law will inevitably find itself engaging in large-scale killings to enforce it. The more aggressive the attempt at transforming society through legal imposition, the more aggressive the killing will be.
Don’t Just Defund the Police, End State Law
This is where the cognitive dissonance with the defund police movements comes into play. The people who support eliminating police violence also regularly support the passage of new mandates, redistribution schemes, and regulatory impositions. Without police, how do they think all these new laws and rules will be enforced? If taxation were a voluntary affair, few individuals would turn a substantial portion of their annual earnings over to the state for redistribution. If gun control were a suggestion, few people would make any effort to submit to the FFL (Federal Firearms License) sales regulations.
By advocating for more laws, rules, and taxes, these people are effectively advocating for an increase in police violence. Abolishing the entity called “police” won’t solve the issue, since the state will inevitably have to form a new entity that does all the same things and has all the same powers. Outlets like Vox can advocate for the creation of mobile response units and community mediators all they want; these entities are, from the viewpoint of the state, toothless without any means to initiate violence to ensure compliance with rules. Community mediators will either find themselves armed or calling on some newly created entity that looks and acts a lot like current police but is called something different to deal with a belligerent individual who refuses to follow the mandate. As anyone with a glove box filled with unpaid parking tickets can tell you, it’s easy to ignore a piece of paper with a fine on it. The state is going to inevitably need an armed, violent agency to handle noncompliant individuals.
The only way to ensure an end to police brutality is not concocting new entities with different names or, worse, focusing on the ethnic element of it, as all that does is try and argue that police violence is fine so long as it’s dished out equally along ethnic lines. The only way is to abolish the state. Without a state, there is no state law. Without state law, there isn’t a need for enforcement by an entity that operates with the language of violence. Without violent enforcement, there isn’t anyone getting killed for noncompliance.
Private structures have little incentive to kill noncompliant actors, and they are able to create stronger enforcement structures than state actors can. Social ostracizing, ejection from business groups, or a ban from a shop would have an equally strong impact compared to the threat of violence. Further, private security agencies that quickly utilize violence would find themselves undesired by customers and lose favor, especially if these agencies create the impression that they are against a particular group of potential customers.
As nice as it would be to believe that police can exist solely as a protection service, this isn’t the case. There’s a reason they’re called law enforcement and not protective services. The US Supreme Court has already definitively told us that our police agencies have no obligation to protect anyone. Their only priority is enforcing the laws, and as those laws expand, the chances we’ll find ourselves interacting unfavorably with an enforcer will increase.


newswars--2020-07-22--New Opportunities for Marxists: Climate Change and Coronavirus

In The Communist Manifesto ( 1848 ) Karl Marx ( 1818–83 ) and Friedrich Engels ( 1820–95 ) predicted that capitalism would lead to the impoverishment of the laboring class .
Why ?
Well , to raise profit on capital invested , Marx and Engels argued , entrepreneurs ( the capitalists ) would exploit the workers .
They would reduce wages and worsen working conditions by , say , increasing working hours .
From that viewpoint , Marx and Engels put forward an immiseration theory of capitalism .
Marxists would not argue that workers ’ wages would decline in absolute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the wage incomes of the many would rise less than the incomes of the capitalists , thereby making the former poorer compared to the latter over time .
Especially in times of crisis , which are inevitable and recurrent in a capitalist economy , workers would be hit particularly hard , causing their economic and financial conditions to fall further behind of those of the capitalists .
To make things worse , Marxists argue that capitalism would bring about violent colonialism and imperialism .
As capitalists pay less for labor than what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy all available products .
Profit-seeking capital is , therefore , seeking to open up new markets in other parts of the world .
Conflicts over who controls what arise among nations , paving the way toward war .
This is , in fact , the message Vladimir Lenin ( 1870–1924 ) hammered home to his readers in his 1917 book Imperialism : The Highest Stage of Capitalism .
If capitalism is bad—if it brings exploitation , misery , and even war to a great many people , and all this comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it rightful and consequential to do everything to overcome capitalism and replace it with socialism-communism , the alternatives said to bring peace , equality and happier life for the people in this world ?
Sound economics reveals that the Marxist critique of capitalism , as well as the high-flying enthusiasm for socialism-communism , is tantamount to outright intellectual confusion .
What Capitalism Really Is : Peaceful Cooperation Many people do not know what capitalism really means .
Capitalism is the social and economic order in which the means of production are privately owned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , capitalism means unconditional respect of people ’ s private property , free markets , and , most importantly , a form of state that is confined to protecting people and their property against aggression from inside and outside the country ’ s borders .
“ Pure ” capitalism is no doubt conducive to peaceful and productive cooperation nationally as well as internationally .
It is capitalism that makes mass production possible—the production of goods and services for the consumption of the greatest number of people .
The productivity gains that it creates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase in people ’ s average living standard .
Producers are subject to the profit and loss principle : they are economically rewarded only if and when their products meet consumers ’ preferences .
If they don ’ t , entrepreneurs will suffer losses , forcing them to improve their output to the benefit of their customers .
Pure capitalism not has only a built-in mechanism to improve the masses ’ material well-being .
What is particularly wonderful is that under pure capitalism , people ’ s wages do not depend on individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ productivity of labor in general .
Assume a firm makes a productive innovation .
To hire new labor , it has to pay higher wages compared to those paid by other employers .
The latter , to retain their staff , will also have to offer a higher wage—to the benefit of less productive workers .
It should also be noted here that pure capitalism encourages the division of labor among people , nationally and internationally .
This , in turn , entices people to seek peaceful cooperation rather than conflict : everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that this is mutually beneficial to all parties involved .
In other words : pure capitalism is a recipe for peace .
In a world of pure capitalism , there would simply be no reason for large-scale violent conflicts , let alone state wars .
Why do so many people harbor resentment or even hate against the concept of capitalism ?
One answer is that they presumably look around and see the many evils in this world , such as the recurrence of financial and economic crises ; mass unemployment ; bailout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disregarding the fate of small and medium-sized firms ; chronically rising costs of living ; growing income and wealth inequality ; and growing geopolitical tensions and conflicts .
Unfortunately , all these evils are attributed to capitalism .
A fatal conclusion , though , because there is no pure capitalism , neither in the US nor in Europe , Asia , Latin America , or Africa .
What we find are interventionist-collectivist and sometimes even socialist economic and societal systems .
Especially in the Western world , basically all states , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over them , have succeeded in increasingly replacing what little is left of the capitalist system in recent decades .
States have interfered in all areas of people ’ s lives .
Be it education ( kindergarten , schools , universities ) , health , pensions , transport , law and order , money and credit , or the environment , the states and their governments have become major players in markets for goods and services , turning free markets into hampered markets , raising taxes ever higher , and increasingly undermining and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sound economics tells us that interventionist-collectivist , let alone socialist , systems do not work to the greatest benefit of all .
All these systems are much less efficient than pure capitalism in terms of material wealth creation—and even prove to be outright failures in the case of socialism .
The particular problem with interventionist-collectivist systems is that to the uninformed observer they may well appear to be capitalism , resulting in all the evils of interventionism-collectivism being ascribed to capitalism .
The truth , however , couldn ’ t be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of capitalist remnants .
The crises that these systems inevitably cause , the dissatisfaction they create among a great many people , are interpreted as a result of capitalism , and so , as a consequence , people call for ending capitalism , for replacing it with a better , more just and reliable economic and societal order .
However , it would be naïve to assume that the problem is confined to a lack of insight into sound economics .
Blaming Capitalism for the Evils Caused by States By no means less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left .
Knowing that the chances for establishing outright socialism-communism in the Western world through a violent upheaval have been fairly small in recent years , those in the Marxist tradition have adapted their strategy : they seek a gradual transformation of what is left of the free economic and societal system by discrediting capitalism , blaming all evil , all societal problems on capitalism , fictionalizing it as the nemesis of mankind .
This , however , is an intentional misinterpretation of what is really going on .
It is to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
People heed the message—being propagandized over and over—that capitalism will seal their fate : that it makes the rich richer at the expense of the poor ; causes ever greater financial and economic turbulence ; doesn ’ t create enough and secure jobs ; destroys the environment ; and so forth .
All this amounts to nothing more than giving a new face to Marx ’ s immiseration theory .
Neo-Marxists : Not Waiting for the Revolution This plays into the hands of the Neo-Marxists who seek control over economic and societal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new world order.
” The spread of interventionism is certainly a milestone in this direction .
Because interventionism , if it is not halted and reversed , leads to socialism .
And the logical culmination of socialism is a struggle for world dominance , as socialism can not exist within limited areas of the earth ’ s surface , especially not if there are still more or less capitalist systems around .
Marxists in the traditional sense may expect capitalism to make the world ripe for socialism .
Neo-Marxists , in contrast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things to turn their way ; they seek action .
Instilling fear among the people that capitalism can not overcome the world ’ s pressing economic , social , and environmental problems , that capitalism is the root cause of all these plights , characterizes the strategy of the Neo-Marxists .
That said , “ climate change ” and the coronavirus pandemic are lucky coincidences for them .
Under the promise of preventing climate change , governments are meant to run truly radical market interventions : imposing taxes and manipulating prices of goods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ size and structure of consumer and investment demand .
In fact , under the well-sounding “ climate change policy ” label , far-left policies can push economies effectively into central planning : the ruling elite determines who produces what and when and at what costs , and who is to consume when and what .
The coronavirus epidemic offers to all the enemies of pure capitalism an even bigger opportunity to strike down what little is left of the free market system .
With the help of coercive lockdowns—allegedly a measure to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroy corporate capital , boycott global trade , and cause mass unemployment , thereby leaving a great many people despondent and receptive to even more interventionist-collectivist or even outright socialist policies .
Fear is known to be the foundation of any government ’ s power .
Neo-Marxists , and those in favor of establishing central global control , have increasingly incorporated this unfortunate truth into their political agitation to destroy what is left of the free market and free societal order , and all the more as their immiseration theory—the impoverishment of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Neo-Marxist onslaught can be successful or defeated is of paramount importance for the vast majority of people .
Only Capitalism Can Deliver Needed Goods and Services Pure capitalism is the only viable economic and societal form of organization .
In his Socialism : An Economic and Sociological Analysis from 1951 ( first published in 1922 as Gemeinwirtschaft : Untersuchungen über den Sozialismus ) , Ludwig von Mises ( 1881–1973 ) noted : “ Capitalism is that form of social economy in which all the deficiencies of the socialist system…are made good .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ social economy which is appropriate to the fulfilment of the demands which society makes of any economic organisation ” ( p. 220 ) .
Disregarding the sound economics ’ teachings about capitalism and socialism and giving in to the ideas propagated by Neo-Marxism would ultimately lead to the destruction of the very foundations upon which the material well-being of billions of people on this globe rests .
It would result in great misery , even starvation and violent conflicts .
It is therefore high time to boldly expose the errors and confusions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for reestablishing pure capitalism .

In The Communist Manifesto (1848) Karl Marx (1818–83) and Friedrich Engels (1820–95) predicted that capitalism would lead to the impoverishment of the laboring class.
Why? Well, to raise profit on capital invested, Marx and Engels argued, entrepreneurs (the capitalists) would exploit the workers. They would reduce wages and worsen working conditions by, say, increasing working hours. From that viewpoint, Marx and Engels put forward an immiseration theory of capitalism.
Worker “Exploitation”
Marxists would not argue that workers’ wages would decline in absolute terms, but certainly in relative terms: the wage incomes of the many would rise less than the incomes of the capitalists, thereby making the former poorer compared to the latter over time. Especially in times of crisis, which are inevitable and recurrent in a capitalist economy, workers would be hit particularly hard, causing their economic and financial conditions to fall further behind of those of the capitalists.
Capitalist “Imperialism”
To make things worse, Marxists argue that capitalism would bring about violent colonialism and imperialism. As capitalists pay less for labor than what is appropriate, the workers cannot buy all available products. Profit-seeking capital is, therefore, seeking to open up new markets in other parts of the world. Conflicts over who controls what arise among nations, paving the way toward war. This is, in fact, the message Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924) hammered home to his readers in his 1917 book Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.
If capitalism is bad—if it brings exploitation, misery, and even war to a great many people, and all this comes to the benefit of the capitalists—isn’t it rightful and consequential to do everything to overcome capitalism and replace it with socialism-communism, the alternatives said to bring peace, equality and happier life for the people in this world? Sound economics reveals that the Marxist critique of capitalism, as well as the high-flying enthusiasm for socialism-communism, is tantamount to outright intellectual confusion.
What Capitalism Really Is: Peaceful Cooperation
Many people do not know what capitalism really means. Capitalism is the social and economic order in which the means of production are privately owned. In its “pure” form, capitalism means unconditional respect of people’s private property, free markets, and, most importantly, a form of state that is confined to protecting people and their property against aggression from inside and outside the country’s borders. “Pure” capitalism is no doubt conducive to peaceful and productive cooperation nationally as well as internationally.
It is capitalism that makes mass production possible—the production of goods and services for the consumption of the greatest number of people. The productivity gains that it creates result in a tendency toward a continuous increase in people’s average living standard. Producers are subject to the profit and loss principle: they are economically rewarded only if and when their products meet consumers’ preferences. If they don’t, entrepreneurs will suffer losses, forcing them to improve their output to the benefit of their customers.
Pure capitalism not has only a built-in mechanism to improve the masses’ material well-being. What is particularly wonderful is that under pure capitalism, people’s wages do not depend on individual workers’ productivity, but the marginal productivity of labor in general. Assume a firm makes a productive innovation. To hire new labor, it has to pay higher wages compared to those paid by other employers. The latter, to retain their staff, will also have to offer a higher wage—to the benefit of less productive workers.
It should also be noted here that pure capitalism encourages the division of labor among people, nationally and internationally. This, in turn, entices people to seek peaceful cooperation rather than conflict: everyone realizes that it pays off to cooperate, that this is mutually beneficial to all parties involved. In other words: pure capitalism is a recipe for peace. In a world of pure capitalism, there would simply be no reason for large-scale violent conflicts, let alone state wars.
Interventionism vs. Capitalism
Why do so many people harbor resentment or even hate against the concept of capitalism? One answer is that they presumably look around and see the many evils in this world, such as the recurrence of financial and economic crises; mass unemployment; bailout programs that make big corporations richer, disregarding the fate of small and medium-sized firms; chronically rising costs of living; growing income and wealth inequality; and growing geopolitical tensions and conflicts.
Unfortunately, all these evils are attributed to capitalism. A fatal conclusion, though, because there is no pure capitalism, neither in the US nor in Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Africa. What we find are interventionist-collectivist and sometimes even socialist economic and societal systems. Especially in the Western world, basically all states, and the special interest groups that exert great influence over them, have succeeded in increasingly replacing what little is left of the capitalist system in recent decades.
States have interfered in all areas of people’s lives. Be it education (kindergarten, schools, universities), health, pensions, transport, law and order, money and credit, or the environment, the states and their governments have become major players in markets for goods and services, turning free markets into hampered markets, raising taxes ever higher, and increasingly undermining and even destroying the institution of private property.
Intervention Cripples the Wealth Creation Offered by Capitalism
Sound economics tells us that interventionist-collectivist, let alone socialist, systems do not work to the greatest benefit of all. All these systems are much less efficient than pure capitalism in terms of material wealth creation—and even prove to be outright failures in the case of socialism. The particular problem with interventionist-collectivist systems is that to the uninformed observer they may well appear to be capitalism, resulting in all the evils of interventionism-collectivism being ascribed to capitalism.
The truth, however, couldn’t be more different. Interventionism-collectivism works toward the elimination of capitalist remnants. The crises that these systems inevitably cause, the dissatisfaction they create among a great many people, are interpreted as a result of capitalism, and so, as a consequence, people call for ending capitalism, for replacing it with a better, more just and reliable economic and societal order. However, it would be naïve to assume that the problem is confined to a lack of insight into sound economics.
Blaming Capitalism for the Evils Caused by States
By no means less important are the ideologues on the political left. Knowing that the chances for establishing outright socialism-communism in the Western world through a violent upheaval have been fairly small in recent years, those in the Marxist tradition have adapted their strategy: they seek a gradual transformation of what is left of the free economic and societal system by discrediting capitalism, blaming all evil, all societal problems on capitalism, fictionalizing it as the nemesis of mankind.
This, however, is an intentional misinterpretation of what is really going on. It is to give a wrong tint to reality—with tragic consequences. People heed the message—being propagandized over and over—that capitalism will seal their fate: that it makes the rich richer at the expense of the poor; causes ever greater financial and economic turbulence; doesn’t create enough and secure jobs; destroys the environment; and so forth. All this amounts to nothing more than giving a new face to Marx’s immiseration theory.
Neo-Marxists: Not Waiting for the Revolution
This plays into the hands of the Neo-Marxists who seek control over economic and societal affairs, striving to establish a “new world order.” The spread of interventionism is certainly a milestone in this direction. Because interventionism, if it is not halted and reversed, leads to socialism. And the logical culmination of socialism is a struggle for world dominance, as socialism cannot exist within limited areas of the earth’s surface, especially not if there are still more or less capitalist systems around.
Marxists in the traditional sense may expect capitalism to make the world ripe for socialism. Neo-Marxists, in contrast, wouldn’t want to wait for things to turn their way; they seek action. Instilling fear among the people that capitalism cannot overcome the world’s pressing economic, social, and environmental problems, that capitalism is the root cause of all these plights, characterizes the strategy of the Neo-Marxists. That said, “climate change” and the coronavirus pandemic are lucky coincidences for them.
Climate Change
Under the promise of preventing climate change, governments are meant to run truly radical market interventions: imposing taxes and manipulating prices of goods and services, thereby politically determining the size and structure of consumer and investment demand. In fact, under the well-sounding “climate change policy” label, far-left policies can push economies effectively into central planning: the ruling elite determines who produces what and when and at what costs, and who is to consume when and what.
The Virus Panic
The coronavirus epidemic offers to all the enemies of pure capitalism an even bigger opportunity to strike down what little is left of the free market system. With the help of coercive lockdowns—allegedly a measure to “fight the virus”—governments can directly destroy corporate capital, boycott global trade, and cause mass unemployment, thereby leaving a great many people despondent and receptive to even more interventionist-collectivist or even outright socialist policies.
Fear is known to be the foundation of any government’s power. Neo-Marxists, and those in favor of establishing central global control, have increasingly incorporated this unfortunate truth into their political agitation to destroy what is left of the free market and free societal order, and all the more as their immiseration theory—the impoverishment of the masses under capitalism—has lamentably failed. Whether the Neo-Marxist onslaught can be successful or defeated is of paramount importance for the vast majority of people.
Only Capitalism Can Deliver Needed Goods and Services
Pure capitalism is the only viable economic and societal form of organization. In his Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis from 1951 (first published in 1922 as Gemeinwirtschaft: Untersuchungen über den Sozialismus), Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) noted: “Capitalism is that form of social economy in which all the deficiencies of the socialist system…are made good. Capitalism is the only conceivable form of social economy which is appropriate to the fulfilment of the demands which society makes of any economic organisation” (p. 220).
Disregarding the sound economics’ teachings about capitalism and socialism and giving in to the ideas propagated by Neo-Marxism would ultimately lead to the destruction of the very foundations upon which the material well-being of billions of people on this globe rests. It would result in great misery, even starvation and violent conflicts. It is therefore high time to boldly expose the errors and confusions of interventionist-collectivist and socialist-Marxist ideology and courageously call for reestablishing pure capitalism.


newswars--2020-07-22--Gorging on Debt to Survive the COVID-19 Economy

Because the country could not stop for debt , he kindly stopped for the nation .
You venture to your mailbox to find a statement notifying you that you have maxed out your credit card .
Instead of making sacrifices and cutting back on your spending , you choose to get another piece of plastic to pay off your old debt .
You claim you are debt-free .
That is , until you receive the next credit card statement the following month .
Does this sound crazy ?
Well , JPMorgan Chase believes that this could be the panacea to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US and global economy , absorbing even more debt than it already has since the fallout of the Great Recession .
With the world nearly $ 200 trillion in debt , what is a few trillion more at this point ?
Debt Is the Disease , Debt Is the Cure Did you know that there is too much debt in the world for the stock market to collapse or for interest rates to come down ?
And the only way to keep the indebted system from collapsing is to continue drowning in debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joke delivered by a dark-humored accountant on April Fools ’ Day or by Keynesian icon Paul Krugman , but this is an analysis from one of the richest and most respected financial institutions in the world .
According to JPMorgan Chase , financial markets are sending a message that they need additional fiscal and monetary stimulus .
Without trillions in additional debt and liquidity , the banking juggernaut writes , the situation could “ eventually become a more problematic signal for equity and risky markets going forward.
” Put simply , if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the March meltdown , it will need to engage in trillions of dollars in preemptive stimulus .
Indeed , you could argue that what the Fed is doing is not stimulus but rather trying to stop the US economy from falling off a cliff .
But JPMorgan is not the only financial juggernaut to present this argument .
Goldman Sachs recently urged the Fed to monetize an extra $ 1.6 trillion in Treasurys to avoid spikes in Treasury yields .
The Federal Reserve has printed $ 3 trillion to stop the hemorrhaging in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stabilized , any time it looks like it will crash , the Fed intervenes and promises another injection of sunshine and lollipops .
You think this would appease the fine folks on The Street .
But it is not enough .
It never is when you are a junkie , and you increase your dosage .
In a lot of major markets , interest rates have been on a downward trend for many years .
This has made money cheap and credit easy to access , artificially fueling borrowing levels and propping up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dictated interest rates , we would have a better sense of consumer demand for credit , but that is a different discussion for another day .
So , with a ferocious appetite for red ink , we have become addicted to debt .
Millions of people are surviving by using their credit cards and lines of credit to pay the rent , buy groceries , and renew magazine subscriptions to Wind Tunnel International .
As a result , the economy is chugging along by imbibing debt , and this is a dangerous situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic downturns or market crashes .
America ’ s debt fixation is so bad that Bloomberg published a study that looked at what would happen if borrowing were outlawed .
The business news network learned that the US economy would be wiped out and per capita income would crater to – $ 4,857 .
China would flourish at the onset because of its trillions in gold and foreign exchange reserves .
However , this would only be temporary , since the country ’ s young generation of consumers has abandoned fiscal responsibility for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than savings—the age-old practice of their generational predecessors .
The nationwide lockdown—you know , the nursing home epidemic that left millions out of work—forced many Americans to add to their credit card debt totals .
US credit card balances are forecast to increase by a whopping $ 140 billion by the end of the year , and this is on top of the enormous amount of consumer debt before the public health crisis .
Even the stock market is relying on debt to get richer .
Many investors—young and old—are utilizing margin accounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Amazon , or Clorox stock .
Robinhood , for example , will give you as much as $ 50,000 in credit .
We have seen what happens when brokerages call in their margins : everything crashes due to the illiquidity in the system .
The New Stimulus : Drown in Debt Is debt inherently bad ?
Not quite .
It can be highly beneficial when it is used correctly .
Remember , many use debt to purchase time , whether it is a mortgage to move into a house now or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets too expensive .
When that debt becomes the basis of civilization , then we have barked up the wrong tree .
Before the coronavirus infected 10 million people , governments spent like drunken sailors and central banks printed like it was nobody ’ s business .
In this post-COVID-19 economy , it is as if governments and central banks have swallowed an experimental beverage that was concocted in the basement of the Eccles Building .
Worse , policymakers are being encouraged by the titans of Wall Street to exacerbate this reckless behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new world .
The only way to keep from drowning is pouring more water over the victim .

Because the country could not stop for debt, he kindly stopped for the nation.
You venture to your mailbox to find a statement notifying you that you have maxed out your credit card. Instead of making sacrifices and cutting back on your spending, you choose to get another piece of plastic to pay off your old debt. You claim you are debt-free. That is, until you receive the next credit card statement the following month. Does this sound crazy? Well, JPMorgan Chase believes that this could be the panacea to stave off the inevitable decay of the US and global economy, absorbing even more debt than it already has since the fallout of the Great Recession. With the world nearly $200 trillion in debt, what is a few trillion more at this point?
Debt Is the Disease, Debt Is the Cure
Did you know that there is too much debt in the world for the stock market to collapse or for interest rates to come down? And the only way to keep the indebted system from collapsing is to continue drowning in debt. This may sound like a sick joke delivered by a dark-humored accountant on April Fools’ Day or by Keynesian icon Paul Krugman, but this is an analysis from one of the richest and most respected financial institutions in the world.
According to JPMorgan Chase, financial markets are sending a message that they need additional fiscal and monetary stimulus. Without trillions in additional debt and liquidity, the banking juggernaut writes, the situation could “eventually become a more problematic signal for equity and risky markets going forward.”
Put simply, if the Fed wants to avoid a repeat of the March meltdown, it will need to engage in trillions of dollars in preemptive stimulus. Indeed, you could argue that what the Fed is doing is not stimulus but rather trying to stop the US economy from falling off a cliff.
But JPMorgan is not the only financial juggernaut to present this argument. Goldman Sachs recently urged the Fed to monetize an extra $1.6 trillion in Treasurys to avoid spikes in Treasury yields.
The Federal Reserve has printed $3 trillion to stop the hemorrhaging in the stock market. Although equities have stabilized, any time it looks like it will crash, the Fed intervenes and promises another injection of sunshine and lollipops. You think this would appease the fine folks on The Street. But it is not enough. It never is when you are a junkie, and you increase your dosage.
Baby, You’re Addicted to Debt
In a lot of major markets, interest rates have been on a downward trend for many years. This has made money cheap and credit easy to access, artificially fueling borrowing levels and propping up credit markets. If the free market dictated interest rates, we would have a better sense of consumer demand for credit, but that is a different discussion for another day.
So, with a ferocious appetite for red ink, we have become addicted to debt. Millions of people are surviving by using their credit cards and lines of credit to pay the rent, buy groceries, and renew magazine subscriptions to Wind Tunnel International. As a result, the economy is chugging along by imbibing debt, and this is a dangerous situation to be in when there are steep economic downturns or market crashes.
America’s debt fixation is so bad that Bloomberg published a study that looked at what would happen if borrowing were outlawed. The business news network learned that the US economy would be wiped out and per capita income would crater to –$4,857. China would flourish at the onset because of its trillions in gold and foreign exchange reserves. However, this would only be temporary, since the country’s young generation of consumers has abandoned fiscal responsibility for instant gratification, relying more on debt than savings—the age-old practice of their generational predecessors.
The nationwide lockdown—you know, the nursing home epidemic that left millions out of work—forced many Americans to add to their credit card debt totals. US credit card balances are forecast to increase by a whopping $140 billion by the end of the year, and this is on top of the enormous amount of consumer debt before the public health crisis.
Even the stock market is relying on debt to get richer. Many investors—young and old—are utilizing margin accounts to attain or build positions in Tesla, Amazon, or Clorox stock. Robinhood, for example, will give you as much as $50,000 in credit. We have seen what happens when brokerages call in their margins: everything crashes due to the illiquidity in the system.
The New Stimulus: Drown in Debt
Is debt inherently bad? Not quite. It can be highly beneficial when it is used correctly. Remember, many use debt to purchase time, whether it is a mortgage to move into a house now or a margin account to buy stocks before it gets too expensive. When that debt becomes the basis of civilization, then we have barked up the wrong tree. Before the coronavirus infected 10 million people, governments spent like drunken sailors and central banks printed like it was nobody’s business. In this post-COVID-19 economy, it is as if governments and central banks have swallowed an experimental beverage that was concocted in the basement of the Eccles Building. Worse, policymakers are being encouraged by the titans of Wall Street to exacerbate this reckless behavior and ensure the planet endures our brave new world. The only way to keep from drowning is pouring more water over the victim.


newswars--2020-07-22--Watch: Pelosi Calls COVID-19 “Trump Virus”

House Speaker and insufferable harpy Nancy Pelosi referred to COVID-19 as the “ Trump Virus ” during an interview Tuesday , blaming the president for making the coronavirus pandemic “ worse.
” “ With the president ’ s comments today , he recognized the mistakes that he has made by now embracing mask-wearing and the recognition that this is not a hoax ; it is a pandemic that has gotten worse before it will get better because of his inaction , and in fact clearly it is the Trump virus , ” the Democrat career politician from California told CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the interview , Pelosi claimed Trump was wrong for not mandating face masks sooner , and claimed he refused to wear one because of “ a manhood thing.
” “ I think a good deal of what we have suffered is clearly the Trump virus , ” Pelosi added , agreeing with Blitzer that “ thousands of Americans ” had died due to the president ’ s policies .
The president , on the other hand , pointed out during a recent interview with Fox News ’ Chris Wallace that NIH director Anthony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both at the start of the pandemic told the public not to wear face masks .
“ Hey , Dr. Fauci said don ’ t wear a mask .
Our Surgeon General , terrific guy , said don ’ t wear a mask , ” the president told Wallace .
“ Everybody was saying don ’ t wear a mask and all of a sudden everybody ’ s got to wear a mask , ” he said , adding , “ As you know , masks cause problems too.
” “ That being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in masks , ” he said .
“ I think masks are good.
” Trump on Monday during a coronavirus task force briefing also called on Americans to wear masks , saying , “ Get a mask .
Whether you like the mask or not , they have an impact .
They will have an effect and we need everything we can get.
” Pelosi ’ s reference to COVID-19 as the “ Trump virus , ” belies its true foreign origins , which President Trump calls attention to by referring to it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jones hosts from the road to break the emergency message to the public that a coup is in motion and the Dems are making their move to overthrow the will of the American people .

House Speaker and insufferable harpy Nancy Pelosi referred to COVID-19 as the “Trump Virus” during an interview Tuesday, blaming the president for making the coronavirus pandemic “worse.”
“With the president’s comments today, he recognized the mistakes that he has made by now embracing mask-wearing and the recognition that this is not a hoax; it is a pandemic that has gotten worse before it will get better because of his inaction, and in fact clearly it is the Trump virus,” the Democrat career politician from California told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
Elsewhere in the interview, Pelosi claimed Trump was wrong for not mandating face masks sooner, and claimed he refused to wear one because of “a manhood thing.”
“I think a good deal of what we have suffered is clearly the Trump virus,” Pelosi added, agreeing with Blitzer that “thousands of Americans” had died due to the president’s policies.
The president, on the other hand, pointed out during a recent interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace that NIH director Anthony Fauci and US Surgeon General Jerome Adams both at the start of the pandemic told the public not to wear face masks.
“Hey, Dr. Fauci said don’t wear a mask. Our Surgeon General, terrific guy, said don’t wear a mask,” the president told Wallace. “Everybody was saying don’t wear a mask and all of a sudden everybody’s got to wear a mask,” he said, adding, “As you know, masks cause problems too.”
“That being said, I’m a believer in masks,” he said. “I think masks are good.”
Trump on Monday during a coronavirus task force briefing also called on Americans to wear masks, saying, “Get a mask. Whether you like the mask or not, they have an impact. They will have an effect and we need everything we can get.”
Pelosi’s reference to COVID-19 as the “Trump virus,” belies its true foreign origins, which President Trump calls attention to by referring to it as the “Chinese virus.”
We are United in our effort to defeat the Invisible China Virus, and many people say that it is Patriotic to wear a face mask when you can’t socially distance. There is nobody more Patriotic than me, your favorite President! pic.twitter.com/iQOd1whktN — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 20, 2020
Alex Jones hosts from the road to break the emergency message to the public that a coup is in motion and the Dems are making their move to overthrow the will of the American people.


newswars--2020-07-22--Covid-1984: Age of the Mask Police Begins! Miami Dedicates Unit to Crack Down

Miami , the area of Florida hit hardest by the Chinese coronavirus , is doubling down on its mask order @ @ @ @ @ of dedicated police officers to enforce the requirements .
Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez @ @ @ @ @ on July 1 , requiring masks “ in all public spaces inside and outdoors throughout @ @ @ @ @ essentially expanded on his April mask order , requiring coverings to be worn outdoors “ @ @ @ @ @ for non-compliance include up to $ 500 in fines or jail time .

Miami, the area of Florida hit hardest by the Chinese coronavirus, is doubling down on its mask order, reportedly deploying a team of dedicated police officers to enforce the requirements.
Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez announced the updated mask order on July 1, requiring masks “in all public spaces inside and outdoors throughout Miami-Dade County.” The order essentially expanded on his April mask order, requiring coverings to be worn outdoors “with few exceptions.”
Penalties for non-compliance include up to $500 in fines or jail time.
Read More