J.D. Tuccille at Reason posted this story:
Why the Truth Still Matters
FACT CHECK: Where Obama, Romney missed mark
Why We are All Screwed When the Supreme Courts Rule (Very Soon) on Obamacare
Perk-buster politician sharpening his pencil
How Drones Help Al Qaeda
Cato Study: Heretofore Unreported ObamaCare ‘Bug’ Puts IPAB Completely beyond Congress’ Reach
Does the Government Think It Can Read Our Mail Without a Warrant Just Because It’s Electronic?
Selective Leaks Worst of All Worlds for Free Speech
SpongeBob SquarePants' Last Stand
Such a very amazing link!
Thanks you for the post.
This Youtube channel is worth having a look at: http://www.youtube.com/user/cambridgehouseintl
Walter Block is 70!?
@Aristippus: Except that I take a heavily conspiracy-theoretic view of the global economy. My theory is that the external powers - the "kingmakers" - decided a few decades ago that China would be the next big thing so long as the Chinese government got its act together and played along and implemented the desired policies. China did not build itself. China played ball and their economy has been fast-forwarded from the late-medieval era where it had stagnated until about 1970-ish. The Chinese government provided the warm bodies and the external powers provided the ingredients the Chinese government did not have: expertise, technology and capital.
Such a massive investment could not occur in the absence of a plan for very long-term profits. So, my theory is that the external powers will continue to use policy pressure to shift the economic advantages toward China and away from US/Europe for decades to come. China will continue to enjoy lower costs of doing business and remain a more attractive place for capital investment while the US/Europe will continue to increase the costs of doing business and tax away more and more of their national products for interventionist wars and welfare subsidies. In order for the external powers to derive the greatest profit from the situation, they will eventually lure smaller, non-institutional investors to invest in China through their brokers or whatever. Once you start seeing "Invest in China Today!" ads on CNN and FOX, then it's time to wonder if the China boom is drawing to a close or reversing. Until then, we should all be joining Jim Rogers in Singapore and learning Mandarin.
Great post. You've really thought this out.
Some interesting thoughts. I really have little knowledge of what elites might or might not be planning but it seems to me that there in the near future the incentives for China to play nice could be significantly weakened. If the Western states, facing further economic catastrophe, begin to tighten their grip on the populace and the movement of people and goods across borders, China will be able to go down a similar path with much fewer economic or political repercussions. And I don't think it can be denied that China does have its own economic problems. Can the lines of credit needed to construct pointless ghost cities - almost the Platonic form of 'malinvestment - really continue forever without destructive inflation (which, perhaps, is already starting to hit)? And what happens if and when these lines of credit cease to be available?
Somewhat related, what are your views on the USA's possible war preparations currently going on? I'm talking, for example, about the securing of supply lines in Yemen and Pakistan (and the trials of drone warfare in these areas), the movement of the navy into the Pacific and the re-occupation of bases there, the continued sanctions on Iran which would apply even to China if they continue to trade with them, Saudi Arabia's increased oil production beyond what their usual quotas, the military coup in Egypt, and the continued agitation over Syria.
what are your views on the USA's possible war preparations currently going on?
I'm a little more conspiracy-theoretic than most on the nature of 20th century history in Europe. I do not believe that either WWI or WWII were ultimately about territory any more than the French or Bolshevik revolutions. Yes, the generals and the leading politicians in the respective nations were territorially motivated but I believe that wars of this scale only occur at the behest of, and in the interests of, royalty.
In particular, the "we must have a world government or else the world will disintegrate in world wars an anarchy" narrative began in earnest in the lead-up to WWI and culmnated in the creation of the League of Nations. After the League of Nations failed to bring about a world government, World War II upped the ante and gave birth to the nuclear age with its Cold War. The powers behind the drive to world government - not communism, not fascism, I mean the real powers like the royal houses of Europe, the Vatican, and the merchant Elite based out of Brussells, Zurich and the City of London - are not the kind of people who just shrug their shoulders and give up when they don't get what they want. I think both WWI and WWII were failures (that is, a failure to give birth to a full-fledged worldwide empire), so they created the UN and hyped the Soviet threat and Cold War and we entered a period of "peacekeeping and limited warfare".
With 9/11, a new page was turned. 9/11 was not an accident. It is the logical successor of the failures of WWI and WWII. They even came right out and said it - 9/11 was the "new Pearl Harbor". The purpose of WWI was to bring about European hegemony and world government (the EU eventually did happen, though I'm not sure any credit can be drawn back to WWI), WWII to bring about world government, and 9/11 was ultimately about bringing about the conditions for world government (under the twin phony threats of global terrorism and global economic catastrophe) - they attempted to ratify the founding documents for a global taxing authority at Copenhagen in 2009 but this failed when the CRU emails were leaked. Since 2009, I think there has been an internecine war going on within the ranks of the Elites and the teetering of the EU and the Arab Spring are out-workings of this real cold war.
I believe that there are patterns to the way the Elites work. They don't just make Plan A and when that fails throw up their hands. They make contingency plans. They are the murdering warrior elites, after all. They prepare scapegoats (Jews have been a recurring scapegoat in Europe and now the Muslims in the US) to cover themselves. They enter into pacts with each other. These are handshake deals. Reneging is unthinkable but that doesn't mean they don't try to defect in deniable ways whenever it suits their interests. That's precisely what happened in Copenhagen 2009.
I suspect that war with Iran was one of the Plan B's but, for whatever reason, that Plan B also failed. So they toppled a bunch of regimes in the Middle East which hurt somebody a lot and now they're playing covert games in Syria while pretending to be "staying out for now" and wringing their hands over what to do next.
I don't think either China or Russia have played an active role in this internecine conflict and this is part of the reason why we haven't yet seen war with Iran. I believe that - among the Elites - China has been the "next big thing" for a few decades and continues to play by the rules. The struggle is internecine between European/Anglo-American Elites. Somebody doesn't feel like they're getting a big enough slice of the pie and they're threatening to pull the grenade pin on the whole thing.
China's best interests are a peaceful world where they continue to be a focus of capitalization. However, they have been preparing themselves for war for a long time. This may also be part of the reason that we have not yet seen war in Iran - US top-brass may understand that if we fight China, we may very well lose. The problem is precisely the fact that our military is so over-funded. It's become bloated - we can't even change a tire on a Humvee for under $10,000 (hyperbole). Add to that that we've created all these "undefeatable" weapons systems like Aegis but we have completely ignored long-run maintenance and deployment costs. If you hurl 1,000 $1,000,000 guided missiles at a carrier fleet simultaneously, only a handful have to get through to defeat the fleet's defenses. For the low price of $1B, you might be able to take out a $50B carrier fleet. That's a bargain.
The very fact that we've seen a shift of the focus away from Iran and onto Syria either means they're secretly planning a massive, surprise strike on Iran (unlikely) or they've given up on the whole Plan-B-Iran which is good news for China and business prospects in China. All-in-all, I'm betting that things are going to continue going up, economically, in China for quite some time. Once this internecine conflict has reached an equilibrium and the Elites decide they've given each other enough bruises, they'll go back to the negotiating table and figure out some kind of new plan. And it will include some new global government scheme. They'll never give up on that. But I think it's more likely than not that China will weather this without being directly involved in the conflict.
Obama’s Economic Sleight of Hand
Obama’s Definition of Compromise
Great stuff Clay, keep it up.
Great stuff Clay, keep it up.
How, exactly, is it "great"? It's mostly opinion, mixed with hunch. For all I know, it could just all be my paranoid delusions.
He's like a shark from the collapsed shark tank in Kuwait...and all Keneysian arguments are seals...
(completely unreleated picture, other than the fact that they both take place underground)
(no, not real, but you thought it could be, right?)
But seriously, click the Mises link for a good story.
(Possibly) all instances of US military use abroad:
I thought this was funny:
Stefbot vs. Schiff: Minarchy vs. Anarchy
Sefan Molyneux did a video a few years back which stated that we are currently living in the worst case scenario of anarchy. Does anyone know where I could find it?
40 years on, Watergate crime scene is forgotten
Tantalizing what if's 40 years after Watergate
Drones, computers new weapons of US shadow wars
Ron Paul Called Rand's TSA "Reform" Phony
Go, Fight, but Don’t Win!
I mostly agree with the New York Times Op-Ed, except for this part: “As much as the European Union likes to believe it has banished power politics, the fact remains: If one country becomes too powerful the others will team up against it. The same thing happened to the United States after the cold war, which was supposed to mark the end of history — and therefore the end of international politics as we knew it. And yet, the neorealist Kenneth N. Waltz wrote in 2000, “As nature abhors a vacuum, so international politics abhors unbalanced power.” He predicted that other powers would naturally team up as a counterbalance in the international order — and, predictably, during the Iraq war Russia, France and Germany built an axis against Washington.”
Russia, France, and Germany, did not oppose Washington simply to balance power. They disagreed because Iraq was not a threat and while the Bush administration fooled the U.S. public, it did not fool the entire international community.
Haha, I wanna see a Rand v Ron debate.
Haha, I wanna see a Rand v Ron debate.
They need to make a Machinima with Ron and Rand getting in a major argument then boxing each other. Put it to super-dramatic music give it kind of a Greek epic feeling.
I don't know why but I would just LMAO.
A couple videos from a great Youtube channel:
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist.
Islamist claims victory in Egypt president vote
Rodney King, whose beating led to LA riots, dies
Rodney King's plea measures his lasting meaning
Socialists take French Parliament, sweep power
National Secrets and National Security
Quotation of the Day…
Economists for Peace
The Munro Doctrine
Lest We Forget
Iran Wants War
Pretty good stuff, it might be something to show someone who is on the way to libertarianism.
socialdtk:[Stefan] Molyneux did a video a few years back which stated that we are currently living in the worst case scenario of anarchy. Does anyone know where I could find it?
Unfortunately I don't, but I pretty much agree with him. We live in an anarchy which does not consistently respect self-ownership.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
It doesn't seem like the TSA is going to leave the airport. If I understand it correctly, the private screeners are meant to add more staff instead of replace the TSA.
They should have had something like: The Gang Examines the Barter Economy and show the scene where the guys go to the fish market where Charlie yells "They're just trading the same fish back and forth!"
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
SPIN METER: Candidates trade misquoting charges
Baseball's Roger Clemens acquitted of all charges
Rodney King autopsy concluded; results weeks away
So, I guess Cambridge, MA is trying to ban soda in restaurants.
A culture of coverup: rape in the ranks of the US military
Obama punishes leakers only when embarrassed
Don’t Shut the Golden Door
The Betrayal of Egypt’s Revolution
CIA releases declassified documents from 9/11 file
The Central Intelligence Agency's 9/11 File
Steve Jobs vs Bill Gates
It still won't be perfect, but it's better than what they had.
So then they should eliminate tampons from women's restrooms. Either that, or they should keep tampons in BOTH restrooms. But if that's the right answer for tampons, then right answer for urinals is they should be installed in BOTH restrooms so women can pee standing up if they want. Not sure what men will do with the tampons... but at least we'll all be equal.
As can be found at Doger Stadium, install these to make it really equal:
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Nielsio's great list of voluntaryists:
Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year
Eleven Nations With Large Fossil-Fuel Subsidies