Golden Stupidity

Gold will come onto your radar, if it hasn't already.  As our fiat currency continues to lose value, the hard money arguments sound increasingly logical.  Let's analyze the fiat currency argument:  "Let's have a central bank (the FED in the US), print pieces of paper, or create zeroes on a screen, and call that money.  We'll then use that as a medium of exchange for things of value."

Here's the hard money argument: "Gold and silver have been used throughout history as money and a medium of exchange, they still have value, and are recognizable to humanity.  Also, you can't print gold or silver, so you put a brake on centralized power and put control into regular people's hands, instead of Big Bank's".

I'm simplifying things, but the hard money argument clearly obliterates the fiat currency argument.  Every single fiat currency has failed.  Every single one.  There are no exceptions.  The people who love printed fiat currency are the ones who benefit - the holders and controllers of Centralized Power.  Gold and silver benefit you, which is why you learned nothing about them in school, and you're propagandized against them currently.  This brings us to this agonizingly stupid article in the Economist - an establishment organ of the Big Bank.  This piece is good to practice using the Trivium, to spot asinine arguments, logical fallacies, and economic crackpottery.  It is apparently the work of a simian brain.

Let's take a short look.  Here are some of the 'arguments' from the upper crust, establishment Economist: "The clips I've found of this discussion on the CNBC website feature commentators appropriately noting that the idea is "ludicrous". But in the sequence I was watching on TV that didn't get picked up by the website, one of the channel's regulars said the attention was misplaced. The gold standard is "never going to happen", he said; it's "incredibly deflationary", the American government is never going to try to return to it, and the whole exploratory committee is just political tomfoolery we should all ignore in order to focus on real issues."

There is no argument present.  Here is what passes for print worthy 'argument' these days in the hallowed halls of The Economist": 'ludicrous', 'never going to happen', 'incredibly deflationary', 'American gov't is never going to return to it' and 'tomfoolery'.  This is why a gold standard is 'bad' and you'd better just not ask any more questions, citizen - you don't want to be accused of peddling tomfoolery.  I can understand that the Establishment House Organs want you to continue to be a wage slave, have your wealth confiscated through the invisible tax known as inflation, and would rather you remain in eternal darkness, but at least they could come up with some semi palatable reasoning or at least sophistry to try to pull the wool over our eyes.

Bafflingly, this article then gets worse.  It tries to besmirch the Austrian school economists, who have been right about everything, and would love to see your economic freedom within a free market.  This defies description.  I'd love to come up with a snarky put down, but I simply cannot: "Austrian-style growth-through-austerity policies are a poor idea that has failed throughout Europe and Britain, but going a step further and bringing back the gold standard is just ridiculous, antediluvian, superstitious nonsense."

I'll work in reverse.  The Gold Standard is 'ridiculous', 'antediluvian' and 'superstitious'.  This is an ad hominem argument.  Calling someone or something bad names is not an argument.  Not only that, the Byzantine Empire lasted 900 years because they adhered to  a strict Gold Standard.  I'm not sure where 'superstitious' came from, but the troglodyte who wrote this probably doesn't either.  Here's the best part.  At no time, in any country, in the history of the modern west, has a government come close to 'Austrian style growth through austerity'.  This attributes a non existent policy, then claims that it has 'failed throughout Europe and Britain'.  This is called a 'straw man fallacy'.  It holds up Austrian economics, then says it has failed.  Austerity?  Where?  The last I checked 'Europe and Britain' have deficits the size of small planets are are spending and printing like mad.  Austrian economics does not permit fiat currency of any kind - the school of economics that this writer has held up as a 'failure'.  Not only that, where were the Austrian School Economists in charge, or having any influence at all?

I thought about titling this piece "Why Blogs Matter", because here you have an accepted, snooty, establishment entity in The Economist, and it is feeding you pure economic trash.  There are countless blogs, personal websites and reports where one can find great insight and solid thought.  The Economist, needless to say, needs you to continue with the status quo of printing money, reckless spending, and sheepledom forever.  IT certainly benefits from that.  You don't.  

How to learn - using The Trivium

The Trivium, or ‘how to learn’

Our top down system of education works something like filling up a barrel.  Your head is the barrel, and your teacher’s job is to fill it up with the required material to pass the Big Test at the end of the year.  How one is supposed to learn this material is never the issue.  The system is such that the material is to be presented to the students, they’ll retain it or memorize it, and then they’ll get a grade over 65 and “pass”.   Collect enough grades over 65 and you’ll pass the requirements, and you’ll get a diploma and be somewhat ‘educated’.  Each subject is to be learned in this manner, and the higher the grade, the more you’ve learned.

This is not how learning was done for thousands of years, and with good reason.  It patently ignores HOW to learn a subject.  This system is a comparatively new one, and if the learned people of the past saw our school system, I think they would be shocked not necessarily at how poor it is, but at the system itself.  Having information or facts thrown at you for 180 days and then regurgitating the information for a grade has shown to be ineffective.  The Trivium is a method of how to learn, not what to learn.  The basic idea behind it is that once one learns how to learn, he can become conversant and knowledgeable about a great many things.  I wish I had been exposed to this at a much younger age.  Let’s do a short overview.

The Trivium is made up of three parts: Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric – in that order.

General Grammar – Answers the question of the Who, What, Where, and the When of a subject. Discovering and ordering facts of reality comprises basic, systematic Knowledge.  General grammar is knowing what the words mean in the sentences you are reading.  If the meanings are unclear to you, or vague, then you aren’t totally clear about what is being stated.  Nailing down the definitions, stripping away vagueness and connotations become the path to clearly and solidly understanding the written or spoken word.  

Formal Logic - Answers the Why of a subject. Developing the faculty of reason in establishing valid [i.e., non-contradictory] relationships among facts, systematic Understanding.  The order of the words in a work relate in a certain way.  Aristotelian logic follows a pattern, and as one reads or listens, if words are used incorrectly, or illogically, or assumptions are made, one is able so see falsehoods or sophistry (complex words used with intent to confuse) in action.

Classic Rhetoric - Provides the How of a subject. Applying knowledge and understanding expressively comprises Wisdom or, in other words, it is systematically useable knowledge and understanding.  This is where one is able to share one’s wisdom with others through either the spoken word or through writing.  Now you are able to see and edit your own rhetorical shortcomings, improve your production, and create a body of work that is knowledgeable and logical.  

Following these three steps can enable you to become able to learn any subject you wish.  Learning the vernacular of the topic, going through and improving your dexterity with the topic, then sharing it with others is a method that allows you to really learn subjects from a molecular level – from the ground up.

Knowledge –> Understanding –> Wisdom.

Many thanks go out to the work of Jan Irvin at www.triviumeducation.com

Reprinted with permission from marolla.wordpress.com

Europe's Economy is in Trouble

The Euro, a monetary experiment of long planning, seems to be crumbling.  As we speak, the southern European countries, often referred to as 'PIIGS' (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) are underwater in debt.  The Euro plan, long in the making, may already be at its end.  The carefully laid plans of Jean Monnet and Raymond Fosdick have fallen apart.  The Establishment decreed that the European Union would use a fiat, paper currency called 'The Euro', and this would create a smooth trade process, and it would be economically beneficial.  It has been a disaster.

I remember hearing about the Euro in the late '90's.  All of the rhetoric was how it would make things better for Europe, and how 'efficient' the trading of the Eurozone would be.  The European Central Bank would be in the background, at the levers, centrally controlling things, never allowing things to get too bad or too good.

How did it go horribly wrong?

The southern European countries have tended toward Socialist style economies.  There are stories about exceedingly early retirements, pensions for all, hazard pay for hairdressers - it's a long list.  These ideas are economically unfeasible.  You can't create something from nothing.  The 'money' used to fund these things is created from nothing, and it is borrowed via the floating of bonds.  The northern European countries, even with their tendency toward Big Government, have less poor economies and a different mindset when it comes to work and retirement.  The most noteworthy  of these countries is Germany, which actually manufactures products and provides services.

Germany and the European Central Bank have been continually asked to bail out the southern European countries.  Greece and Spain are so far in debt, basically at a level to be considered hopeless. The elephant in the room is that large banks in Europe have large amounts of exposure to the explosive levels of debt.  These banks have huge amounts of economic and political clout, and they will not go gently into that goodnight.

As usual, note the questions that are not asked.  Why use a fiat currency?  Would a gold backed currency be a better choice?  Why should the economies of Europe be 'linked' in the first place?  There were people who predicted that this economic monstrosity would be a failure.  They were called crackpots then, they're being called crackpots now by The Establishment.  A good sociological experiment might be finding out how seriously wrong The Powers That Be have to be before the people lose faith in the Planners.

Here, Nigel Farage explains the the farcical nature of massive, interlocking indebtedness.  When the EUR implodes, the people laughing in the background will not be 'available for comment'.




Recommended reading: "Fiat Money and Collective Corruption."

FB Thread of note 1

Here's a good Facebook thread I was in with two other people.  Sometimes the new social media is useful.  I think it would be a good idea to choose your Facebook threads wisely, and use them to increase your rhetorical skills.  Being able to write well and express your opinions and thoughts clearly is an invaluable skill.  I use Facebook to practice this, with my FB friends who I find to be intelligent and erudite.


Person A (original post) - "What I would like to know is if the Great Depression lasted from 1929 until 1942, how in the world does anyone expect the President to solve a Great Recession in 2-4 years? Is that logical to you?President Bush or President Reagan both presided over down economies longer than President Obama has and got 2nd terms. Both had tax increases supported by both parties.Be reasonable people or just admit that you just don't like President Barack Obama!"

Person B - Just from a historical perspective, Reagan's second term came after a significant uptick in the economy that was similar to the 2006 bloated housing market, only for it to burst in 1987 in conjunction with the S & L scandal. Bush inherited those economic problems, in addition to the national defense bills Reagan accrued, which is why he lost his second election. So it is true that, so far, Roosevelt is the only president that has been re-elected during a down economy.

Me - The gov't can't 'fix' the economy. Murray Rothbard's "The Great Depression" goes into the role of gov't interference in the 1920's and how it, and the Central Bank (FED) caused the Great Depression.

Person B - Yeah, Keynsian theory is predicated on the reality that WWII actually cured the Great Depression's lock on the world economic downturn. War literally created the demand for manufacturing, which required the millions of jobs necessary to meet that demand.
Concerning W., recall the economy was recovering from 9/11 by the time he ran for office a second time in '04, and as far as politics are concerned, that's all that matters. Had Obama been required to run last year, when the jobs numbers were significantly higher per month, it would have been a lot easier for his campaign compared to now.

Me - Very true, and when folks bring up the falsehood about WWII 'solving' the Great Depression, I ask them if morally, half a million deaths are an adequate price for economic stability. This is where the threads usually end.... good pt. about election cycles..

Person B - ‎60 million, if you talk about across the world.

Person A - Never is war an adequate solution. Never should thousands or millions pay to create good.
The economics of the spurred-on manufacturing caused by WWII is real. That did cause the Great Depression to end. The technical aspects of moving the world's largest economy in downward spin is not simple and cannot be flexed so quickly in a 2-4 year cycle. Patience all.

Person B - But, yeah Person A, to your point concerning Obama, neutral economic experts on Wall Street have always predicted the economy would recover somewhere around 2016 or so, meaning that whoever controls the White House in this next presidential cycle could claim victory over the issue, regardless as to whether they could do much or not. Politics...

Person A - Agreed. Precisely my point.

I have been saying since 2008 that the economic crisis is structural and will not and cannot be solved artificially.

Me - OK, if you consider taking millions of working age men out of the American workforce, getting American manufacturing on war footing, borrowing massively against the taxpayer, and killing people. If that's 'curing a depression', then I'm out. Then, the Keynesians & gov't worshipping types predicted disaster as servicemen came back, the gov't budget was slashed, and taxes were lowered. The economy took off. This is the history we don't learn - especially the 'gov't budget slashed' part.

Person A - That is what caused the economic downturn in the early 1950s. Republican President Eisenhower had to increase taxes to get revenues back inline. The slashing of taxes and rapid shrinking of the government caused unintended consequences that needed to be brought back inline with increased taxes by a Republican former military hero President. After that, the economy took off and created the American dream that folks wax nostaligically about all the time now.

Me - I think there's a disconnect with 'shrinking gov't' and 'shrinking gov't budget'. The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about (that Obama has allowed to run wild) was getting ramped up and the budget wasn't there for it. Eisenhower had to raise taxes to support that, under the aegis of the Cold War. Yes, the economy took off when JFK lowered taxes. The most productive single year in the US economy, ever, was 1946. The most productive decade in our history was 1879 - 1889, when the gov't was minuscule and we were on a gold standard. Henry Ford paid his workers in the early 1900's $5 a day(1/4 oz gold - do the math) the highest in the world at the time. There was no minimum wage, there were no payroll taxes, no income tax, there were no unions. How is this possible? We made the best products, at the lowest cost - the people were literate and things were really getting going for the 'regular people'. Then it all ended - the FED, Income tax, WWI -- game over man.

-------------------- end ------------

This is a surface level debate, just a voicing of opinions, jousting back and forth, but it serves a purpose for you, the writer to allow yourself to be challenged and take criticism and respond accordingly.  Choose your threads carefully, use your time on social media wisely, and practice your craft.  Time is the only resource you can never get back, so avoid the blabber about pop and media stars, and be productive.

Why American Schoolchildren are Stupid

28. Here is the most glaring question from this past June's US History and Government Regents.  This is for 'mastery' of the subject for 11th graders in New York State.  
    
    See if you can spot the answer.
    
    28  What was a basic cause of the Great Depression of the 1930s?
    
    1. (1)  Too many antitrust laws were passed.
       
    2. (2)  Tariffs on foreign manufactured goods were
       reduced.
       
    3. (3)  The distribution of income was unequal. 
29.           (4)  Immigration was not limited. 
    
    
    If you ever are curious as to why our young citizens of The Republic are historically and economically ignorant, you can now see why.  The 'answer' is: (3) The distribution of income was unequal.  Of all of the bad explanations for the causes of the Great Depression, this one has to be the most incorrect and economically ignorant.  The idea that the distribution of income should be, or could ever be 'equal' is one that has been dismissed even by the most rabid Marxists on the planet.  It is impossible for there to be such a thing, even in the Utopian Visions that reside in the hallowed halls of academia.  Not only has 'equal distribution of wealth' been seen as sort of  an infantile concept, wouldn't this inequality guarantee constant depressions all over the earth?  Income wasn't distributed equally in 1929, or 1944, or 1229, or 1776, or 1886, or 1986, or 2012.  According to the sage Overlords of the NY State Regents committee for Historical Assessment, it is this very inequality that had to have been one of the horrid reasons for Great Depressions.  By their reasoning, we should be in a constant economic depression.  
    
    It's easy to point out the limitations of today's youth.  Now you can see the pure propaganda that our high school students are fed, in order to indoctrinate them into a meme that will get them away from thinking about their own wealth and welfare, and push them into the collectivist mindset.  It is also too simple to leave today's high school students holding the bag.  It is the adults who create wretched and foolish exams like this - exams unfit for simian consumption.  Why don't we assess students with real material?  The top schools got rid of short answer exams 150 years ago, stating that they were worse than useless.  Oxford and Cambridge rid themselves of short answer tests, noting that they did nothing but 'train'.  It is undoubtedly coincidence that our current president opined a few years ago that he was a believer in the idea that things are economically better if we 'redistribute the wealth'.  This is a sinister coincidence.  I recommend that all parents monitor what their children are getting as 'education' these days, as this exam question is just the tip of the iceberg.  
30. "We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."
31. - - Woodrow Wilson - Address to the New York City High School Teachers Association (9 January 1909)

28. Recommended reading for the true causes of the Great Depression:  The Great Depression, by Murray Rothbard
    
    Recommended reading: NEA, Trojan Horse in American Education, by Sam Blumenfeld
    
    Video showing Peter Schiff trying to explain The Great Depression to Establishment pawns:
    
    

Who Was Niccolò Machiavelli?

Niccolo Machiavelli did something that electrified the planet and enraged the Power Elite. He gave away the secrets of getting and keeping State Power. The Prince is his magnum opus detailing how to 'look honest' while doing the wrong thing. If this keeps The Prince in power, then the ends justifies the means. Your Overlords read this in their Elite Private School - it's still on the reading list. It was taken off your school's reading list in 1922 (or thereabouts).


There are a few works of literature that should be on the reading list of every school in the country.  The Prince is one of them.  Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, another treatise on how to deal with the masses, is another.  Many of these books are difficult to read, but the treasure trove of information they contain is first rate.  By dumbing down the American population, The Powers That Be don't have to worry about two things.  They don't have to ever worry about one of the Herd getting his or her hands on the book, and if they do, the Mass Man or Mass Woman has no chance of understanding it.  Look at the ads and the articles in magazines like the American Mercury or the Saturday Evening Post from the early 1900's to see what I'm talking about.  Compulsory schooling has taken the literate American libertarian system and turned it into a tool for creating ignorance. 


Today's political system, and the reactions to it by the people has proven Machiavelli correct on all counts.  Politicians of all stripes promise the moon, and the people on the side of that guy weep and snivel and bow and scrape before their Honorable Leader.  Then the guy on the other Team does the same thing and his team genuflects and tears up at every speech and stare and gape in wonder at such 'leadership' and 'growth'.  It is a sight to behold.


From the Rothbard article: "The prince, he writes, must be willing to become "a great liar and deceiver," taking advantage of all the credulous: for "men are so simple" that "the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived." Or, in the immortal words of P.T. Barnum centuries later, "There's a sucker born every minute." And again, in praising fraud and deceit, Machiavelli writes that "contemporary experience shows that princes who have achieved great things have been those who have given their word lightly, who have known how to trick men with their cunning, and who, in the end, have overcome those abiding by honest principles." Or, in the words of another astute American social critic: "nice guys finish last."
As one might say - "simply Machiavellian".


Recommended reading "Who Was Niccolò Machiavelli?" by Murray Rothbard.  
Read Below by Jeff Riggenbach.

End of the Year 2012

I'm in the middle of the essay collection "A Mencken Chrestomathy", and because he writes about 'pedagogy' in a series of essays, I feel compelled to write a companion blog post.  It would be difficult to equal Mencken's disdain for Organized Education, but I feel I'm coming close.  Here's why.

The scuttlebutt in my district is that the History department (I refuse to use the term 'social studies') in our partner high school has been 'doctoring' grades.  A reliable source tells me that this has actually been going on for at least a decade.  This, however, is not news.  Teachers in my district are encouraged, even strong-armed to make the grades as high as possible, as often as possible.  As 90% of educrats are unable to provide any quality assessment, only passing percentage is used to gauge learning.  If the passing percentage is low, a teacher risks being called 'downstairs' for a tongue lashing.  All kinds of invective are hurled at the teacher in order to convince him to 'review' or 'scrub' or 're-assess' his grading policy or the grades themselves.  This farcical process usually ends with the teacher changing the grade(s). Naturally, Johnny or Suzy Administrator will now brag on his resume about how amazing he was, and how great his passing percentages were.  The hapless taxpayers are on the hook for this nonsense - now to the tune of $155,000.  That's just for my school.

Because of this History Department malfeasance, the English, Earth Science, and yes, History Departments had to grade while being 'watched' by an educrat from either the State or BOCES.  All of us are trusted to be in rooms with teenage males and females, often with the door closed, but when it comes to grading a State Exam - not so fast.  Our 'watcher' had us in a room at our sister school, grading at a table with two other teachers - but there was no crosstalk, no long breaks, no "cheating" allowed.  This made our lives easier.  Instead of doing all of the administrative tasks that go with a NYS Regents Exam, we were only to grade, and then give the folder of graded writing to the Over Lord.  Doing the grading bubble sheets was the purview of our Superior, so as he completed the (now pure) grade recording, all the usual crosstalk, grade comparing, chatter, was able to be done.  I'm happy to report, however, that none of the aforementioned horrors took place.  The unabashed joke that is the NY State English Regents was graded peacefully and without blemish.

At some point, this system will crash.  Left out of this narrative are other cases of incompetence, calumny, cloddishness and general name calling.  Twisting in the wind is the most persecuted species in American History - the American taxpayer, who craves to have his money removed from his bank account because "it's for the kids".

Recommended reading: A Mencken Chrestomathy - a collection of H. L. Mencken essays
Education: Free and Compulsory, by Murray Rothbard