Still all you have to do is mention "Socialism" and even 'the awake brain' ceases to function. That's because "left-vs.-right" is not the only false paradigm in which countless millions of people have sheepishly allowed their minds and intellects to be enslaved by elite-funded propaganda campaigns. Among the many other false paradigms are: The non-racist Obama supporter-vs.-racist Obama hater paradigm. The Austrian School "capitalism"-vs.-Marxist "socialism" paradigm. And in the case of health care: the patient-funded/oligopoly-controlled health care-vs.-taxpayer-funded/government bureaucrat-controlled health care paradigm. The conservatives who've bought into this paradigm blindly assume that, if you support allowing government to finance the cost of health care via universal health insurance, then by definition you support allowing government to run health care itself via top-down, Nazi-style control measures (even though single-payer advocates who support the former oppose the latter). The liberals who've bought into the same paradigm make two corollary (yet equally false) assumptions: (a) anyone who advocates governmental control of health care itself (such as Obama does) automatically supports universal health insurance (Obama doesn't); and (b) anyone who opposes governmental control of health care itself automatically opposes universal health insurance (even though single-payer advocates who oppose the former support the latter). Who benefits from this false paradigm? The eugenicists do, because either way they win. Under Obamacare, you have population reduction through such things as tainted vaccines and denial of treatment. Under the phony "free market" alternative that lets overprivileged insurance and pharmaceutical oligopolies price-gouge everyone into bankruptcy, you have a more indirect form of population reduction -- with millions of people dying prematurely due to health care costs having been artificially driven out of their reach. Good luck explaining all this to either side of the health care shouting match, though. |
"For the first years of [Ludwig von] Mises’s life in the United States...he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.” -- Richard M. Ebeling http://propagandamatrix.com/forum/index.php/topic,5221.0.html | ||||
Logged http://propagandamatrix.com/forum/index.php/topic,5126.0.html
http://propagandamatrix.com/forum/index.php/topic,5084.15.html
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=120441.0#msg749243
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162212.0
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/6/as_obama_hosts_summit_on_health
__________________________________
If we don’t immediately replace our debt-based money supply with a debt-free money supply, then a total “collapse” of the current system means a catastrophic collapse of the entire economy. The horrible aftermath of such a collapse would make the Great Depression of the 1930s look PLEASANT by comparison. So you really should be much more careful about what you wish for!
That would be like trying to put out a raging forest fire with a few dozen squirt guns!
We need nothing less than the sort of debt-free, “Greenback”-style money system advocated by such monetary reformers as Ellen Brown, Richard C. Cook, Byron Dale, Stephen Zarlenga, and the makers of “The Money Masters” documentary (and the recently-released sequel, “The Secret of Oz”):
http://propagandamatrix.com/forum/index.php/topic,1012.msg2473.html#msg2473
-geolibertarian
_________________________________
Geolibertarian Reply:February 15th, 2010 at 9:27 am
On the contrary, it is *you* and all your fellow Austrian School cultists who are in “denial” about the fundamental difference between DEBT-BASED fiat money, on the one hand, and DEBT-FREE fiat money, on the other.
Contrary to what the monetary flat-earthers and ideological snake-oil salesmen from the Austrian School would have everyone blindly believe, it’s the DEBT aspect of the current system that’s causing all the damage, not the “fiat” or “paper” aspect.
So the only “lie” being peddled here is the Austrian School lie that a genocidal collapse of our entire economy is not only inevitable, but *desirable*, since — following said collapse — a mystical, God-like entity euphemistically called the “free market” will magically rise like a phoenix from the ashes of our destroyed nation, give birth to a gold-based money system, and all will be well with the world.
This is why I and others regard the Austrian School as more of a quasi-religious CULT than a legitimate school of economic thought.
-geolibertarian
_______________
————————————-
“The gold standard and the inflation argument that was used to justify it were based on the classical ‘quantity theory of money.’ The foundation of classical monetary theory, it held that inflation is caused by ‘too much money chasing too few goods.’ When ‘demand’ (the money available to buy goods) increases faster than ’supply’ (goods and services), prices are forced up. If the government were allowed to simply issue all the Greenback dollars it needed, the money supply would increase faster than goods and services, and price inflation would result. If paper money were tied to gold, a commodity in limited and fixed supply, the money supply would remain stable and price inflation would be avoided.
“A corollary to that theory was the classical maxim that the government should balance its budget at all costs. If it ran short of money, it was supposed to borrow from the bankers rather than print the money it needed, in order to keep from inflating the money supply. The argument was a ’straw man’ argument — one easily knocked down because it contained a logical fallacy — but the fallacy was not immediately obvious, because the bankers were concealing their hand. The fallacy lay in the assumption that the money the government borrowed from the banks already existed and was merely being recycled. If the bankers themselves were creating the money they lent, the argument collapsed in a heap of straw. The money supply would obviously increase just as much from bank-created money as from government-created money. In either case, it was money pulled out of an empty hat. Money created by the government had the advantage that it would not plunge the taxpayers into debt; and it provided a permanent money supply, one not dependent on higher and higher levels of borrowing to stay afloat.
“The quantity theory of money contained another logical fallacy, which was pointed out later by British economist John Maynard Keynes. Adding money (‘demand’) to the economy would drive up prices only if the ’supply’ side of the equation remained fixed. If new Greenbacks were issued to create new goods and services, supply would increase along with demand, and prices would remain stable. When a shoe salesmen with many unsold shoes on his shelves suddenly got more customers, he did not raise his prices. He sold more shoes. If he ran out of shoes, he ordered more from the factory, which produced more. If he were to raise his prices, his customers would go to the shop down the street, where shoes were still being sold at the lower price. Adding more money to the economy would inflate prices only when the producers ran out of the labor and materials needed to make more goods. Before that, supply and demand would increase together, leaving prices as they were before.” — Ellen Brown, Web of Debt, pp. 100-101
————————————-
It’s high time that well-meaning patriots stop blindly accepting Austrian School dogma as gospel and start *questioning* it.
_________________
No comments:
Post a Comment