Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Blow out the candle please

Speaking of pigs and things that go bump in the night - the Obamination apparently had a birthday the other day. Smiling that fake smile, hugging some of his cronies, increasing his private army, destroying what’s left of the economy, you know whatever. While the budget deficit is now close to 2 trillion dollars this year and the government budget has shrunk 18% this smug fascist is having a party celebrating his own fabulousness.

This world have never been in more peril than it is today and the main reason for this is that we have a socialist moron at the white house helping the rest of this worlds maniacs destroying what little decency there is left.


  1. Hey. Calm down.
    In what way is the world in more peril today than during the second world war?
    The world is actually in LESS peril right now than it has been for a long time.
    Maybe it's only that you want to think so to motivate more drastic and less thoughtful action? Like to nuke'm? Boring these days with all the dialogue and understanding?

  2. Dude! get the fuck out of the Matrix already! You are in a invincible prison, you just don't get it.

  3. Anonymous 1:
    Today we are in deeper economic trouble then we were in the 20’s and 30’s. Today there is nothing holding the elitist back like the Gold Standard or a decent understanding of peoples freedom. On the contrary, today Keynesianism and stateism is king. The US will not come to the rescue this time; it is far likely they will be among the main culprits. And then we have fun things like nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to ad to the mixture. Finally people are far more lazy and far less inclined to actually do something about wrongs today. This means we will let the power elite get away with murder far longer and more than we did back then. All in all a fine mess that cannot end very well.

    Anonymous 2:
    Ouhm… yeah, right… read the answer to the first anonymous one…

  4. Anonymous 1:
    I believe what I was talking about was "peril".
    There is a difference between "peril" and "trouble".
    Actually the lack of peril (obviously discounting terrorist whose actions hardly compare in scale with those committed in a real war) is almost surprising.
    In times of economical crisis, peril is usually there.
    Not today though. No large scale invasions, not really much at all. I am not saying all is well, but most is lot better than it used to.

    Apocalypse nowish:
    * Elitist? Who could possibly be more elitist than the previous administration?

    * Keynesianism and stateism is king? Well, I agree that many of those banks should have fallen. But there would have been other costs with that. For example, the market would have ended up with fewer competitors, which is very bad for a market oriented economy. But saying that those ideas rules just for themselves is a huge overstatement. If it had, the stimulous package would have been far larger.
    But remember, how did the US get out of the last depression? The New Deal was a big part of it.
    This is just the New New Deal.

    * The consequence of a single nuclear detonation in a major city by some terrorist organisation would be bad. But not as bad as a war. Any ground war kills more people. To be that effective killers, the bombs has to be huge and advanced contraptions, far beyound the economy and ability of a terror organisation.

    Of only people communicate, I am sure it will end pretty well. It is lack of communication, internal or external that has started, I suppose, every war to date.

    One thing that differs from before though, is that people in general are so damn scared about everything nowadays. So what if there is a 1 to a million chance that you die in a terrorist attack when a car ride or smoking likely will instead?
    See? Now you got me going. :-)

  5. I do not really differ on the hairless W chimp and the current administration when it comes to elitism. It is pretty much the same thing, the same policies and, in many cases, the same people. With elitists I mean the entire system and all those that run and defend it from above i.e. journalists, top executives, everyone in Washington and so on.

    Less competition is partly temporary and besides, it is not the number of competitors that are the main drive force behind a market economy, it is the competitioness and that can come from substitutes or exists better between a few banks as well as among many. And the US did not take it self out of the depression thanks to the new deal, it did so despite of it. Everyone that has ever studied that part of history or knows something about economy knows this, and this is not a new deal, this is the mother deal of all deals ever made plus then some. This is the largest stupidity ever in mankind’s history – with the exception for man-made global warming and religiosity maybe…

    And, I was actually taking about war, not terrorists. Although terrorist will detonate this or that in the near future, I too agree that such a scenario is less bad then a regular war. However, a war or rather several wars are coming. When people have nothing left to lose, they will loose it. And the same goes for governments.

    And the latest passage is absolutely correct. People are more scared. They might die from the piggy flu, mad-cow disease or some other scary thing. Some people also think that they might die from hurricanes, shark attacks or whatever. So they have nothing really against being cuddled with, which is one of many reasons why the government can sell us whatever crap there is as long as we feel protected.

  6. Competition:
    In fact, there number of competitors is crucial. If that number is to low, the remaining few will start interacting more and more, creating both implicit and explicit cartels. This has been shown many many times. There is just too damn much money to be made there. The next step is to continue merging even further until there is only one or two left in the area business. At that point, no one can compete with those because they have both huge war chests and agreements that effectively locks them in.
    For an example, look at Microsoft.
    If it hadn't been for the actions of the legislators limiting the actions of that company, I would never have been writing this on a Linux workstation, as Microsoft would be so completely dominant and closed that I would have to use their browser to look at this page. Also, Linus Torvalds would never gotten anyone to bother about Linus as it wouldn't either have supported ActiveX or MS-SMTP. Also, MS could easily have adjusted their browser to only show "safe" authenticated sites(read IIS-driven ones).
    As it stands now, even small competitors work(albeit not well) as a force to haul Microsoft forward.
    Competiting with MS would simply not have been possible if there hadn't been anti-trust laws.
    Morgan Friedman got a lot of things right, but he was also extremely naive, because he did not have enough political, judicial and psycho/sociological factors. A totally free market will only create huge and inefficient companies which act as sub-states in the economy. Again and again this has been proven to be true. The new deal was very important on a psycological level. Economy on that scale is more often a matter of psycology and than economy, really. Socioeconomics, actually.

    What war would that be? The one between the west and islam or something? A new cold war?
    Preparing for war is a great way to start one.
    There are huge economical interests that work day and night to convince you and me that war is around the corner, they sponsor certain action movies, owns news networks, NRA and lobby(buy off) politicians. Why do you think they do this? Because they care?
    Does the peace movement do this the other way? Eeh, not really.
    Remember, historically, who has been shown to be the liars? The war mongers or the others(with the obvious exception of the idiot Chamberlain, of course)?

    This government has so far shown at least some interest in protecting civil liberties as opposed to the last, who's obvious goal was to have complete control of all information.

  7. Anonymous:
    In fact, the number of competitors have no impact whatsoever on competition or the level of market economy. It can even be a single company with “monopoly”, as long as that company provides the best of the best and is still subjected to competition from substitutes as well as pressure to perform at the very highest level because otherwise they will invite other companies into their particular field. This is the theoretical answer; of course, in reality such a single company would never emerge on a competitive market. Monopoly can only be found within and because of government. The only reason why you mention this is because you have no idea how a market economy works or what capitalism really is. And none of what you mentioned has ever been proven since all we have ever seen has been market economies with different degrees of socialism injected into it. Sometimes the laws, regulations and taxes have been very high, like they are in almost every country in the world today, or they have been slightly less.

    And you are right, the new deal, as well as the Obaminations stupidity, is mainly about psychology, not economics. And in this aspect it might “work” in the sense that it convice people to spend again and temporarly get some wheels spinning. However, it did NOT work during the great depression and it is hard to see it work now.

    Frankly I have no idea where or when such events will take place. I can give you several well founded guesses about China, US, Iran, Israel, Eastern European countries or South America, but in reality this is very hard to predict. I think civil war in China and the US has a very high probability. Chavez will sooner or later fail on his promises which mean he will do the same as any dictator, start a war. If you’re asking me if there will be a third world war, I would haft to say no, at least not as it looks now, but I would not rule it out either.

    I have no idea what people or what “economical interests” that is trying to convince us about war here and there. Never seen or heard anything about this, where have you found this hilarious bit of information?

  8. Economy:

    No, the theorethical answer is actually what you said: "such a single company would never emerge on a competitive market".
    It is even more than that, it is almost inevitable that at some time, a company will gain a long-standing monopoly of any given market. Business is not only about economy, it is a about law, marketing, strategy and dirty tricks as well.
    In a real and completely unregulated market, these factors will in the beginning be completely unimportant, but given time, they will completely take over. I really can't see how this can't be completely obvious, especially these days.
    A free market is as impossible as anarchy.

    I agree about the possibility of a chinese civil war. I have huge difficulties in seeing why a civil war would happen in the U.S., none of the factors that start civil wars a

    Well, I stated a few in my post. And those are completely official and in the open.
    Just as an example, to create political support for a project, the contractor spreads the manufacturing all over the U.S.. That way, senators are pushed in to support projects that shouldn't even happen otherwise.
    Not very hilarious, just the way stuff works.
    If you made a lot of money manufacturing weapons, wouldn't you try to boost the market? Wouldn't you support the NRA?
    If you don't see it, start looking.

  9. Hm. For some reason, I did not finish on war.
    Should have been: "none of the factors that usually start civil wars are present there."

    Iran-Israel, perhaps, but the U.S. would never allow Israel to attack a country that has a brewing democratic movement. I don't see any other large-scale stuff going on.

  10. Anonymous:

    Yeah, okay, you sort of got me on the point “theoretical”, since we do not really have any empirical studies to show this as a proven fact. However, a good degree of intellectual approach will “prove” this. There is no reason and no indication and no intellectual argument that has or ever will prove this statement wrong. Business should be about economy, soley, but sure, as you mention it is about laws, marketing, taxes and many other things, in today’s world and every system that has ever existed before. Of course those things will distort the market and/or conjure up certain abnormalities. But even in a so so market economy, there is very hard to see any real monopolies being formed. The only time that happens is either through direct government ownership or through government laws and/or subsidies. You also seem to forget that a true monopoly only exists when no substitutes and no competitors is let into the market. A free market is a complete possibility, a regulated and controlled market, however, will always lead to strange things, just like anarchy.

    U.S has lots of indications and lots of factors that might trigger civil war. Secessions are being talked about, seriously talked about, in several states. We have lots of very angry and hardliner groups on both sides that do not need much to explode. We have racial issues and many other things, but the main problem is the economy and the looming hyperinflation that may very well trigger an upheaval.

    Regarding the propaganda bit, you mentioned war before, now you are talking about weapons. That is not the same thing, stick to one of them. You were saying there are a lot of talks about war, I have never seen this. There is, however, talks about self protection and/or guns being made here and there as you mention. The two is not the same.