Saturday, 20 May 2017

Reflections on the state, economic regulation and violence reduction


Rehabilitating Leviathan:
Reflections on the state, economic regulation and violence reduction

STEVE HALL AND SIMON WINLOW
Northumbria University, UK and University of Teesside, UK

Abstract
This article argues that some currently influential liberal-culturalist discourses tend to underplay the direct link between violent street crime, economic marginalization and the more ruthless adaptive aspects of advanced capitalist culture. In doing so they consistently reify the state, misconstrue its social role and represent its decline as a fait accompli. There is also a tendency to misrepresent the relative and moderate success in reducing street violence that it once achieved by using its political mandate to help maintain underlying economic stability above the required threshold. Underneath these discourses is a tacit political endorsement of the global neo-liberal project that is revealed by their collusion in the political neutralization of populations and the delegitimization of the potentially democratic state and its vital role in socio-economic stabilization and violence reduction.

Friday, 19 May 2017

I have a dream...

This graph is for Australia. I've seen similar nrs for the USA, about 30% of GDP is rent seeking. Now, imagine that grey area pledged as taxes. And most of the pink area, if not all, shifting its colour to blue. With the rentier excess charge destroyed, you'd have a lower cost of production and consumption. LVT at or near 100% rate would keep land values stable and fair. You'd probably need a progressive tax on non-rent income that only the opulent minority would qualify to pay. A tax on luxuries and an excise on fossil fuels. Patents ought to be abolished too, as they're just another form of rent seeking. Banking regulated on the asset side, being run as a public utility by the Gov for non-profit (my personal preference). Couple all this with a JG, BIG, Single Payer (or NHS)... Oh, orgasmic...

Wednesday, 17 May 2017

They kill pregnant whales but they won't kill Breivik

It's ok to kill rare peaceful mammals with big brains, but it's not ok to kill Breivik. More so, Breivik needs a bigger cell + all the latest video games. *sigh*
https://www.rt.com/news/380105-norway-kills-pregnant-whales/#.WRyKBHVmz3A.twitter

Sweden, the tyranny of the SJWs

LoL!
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/864770350470447105
Also, here's the reaction of Israel's ambassador to Sweden, and I agree with him https://twitter.com/isaacbachman/status/864434826765578240

Check this out as well


ISRAEL: Sweden has placed Israeli Foreign Ministry and Israel's Ambassador on a Twitter block list for 'hate speech' (Via Jerusalem Post)

Now, that 's MFA and ambassador are blocked - is much safer in reading Iran and others, that were not blocked.

Wednesday, 10 May 2017

Steve Hall contributes to my recent rant on couch communists

"What the communists didn't grasp, and what today's lazy narcissistic liberal-lefties can't even understand, is that the Enlightenment irrevocably changed human subjectivity - the way we feel and think about the world. Today's 'emotivist' individuals are no longer fit for any form of 'mutual help' society or economy" ~Steve Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue

Friday, 28 April 2017

Hayek & utter stupidity


If you had a fraction of respect for Hayek, this statement of his will erase that.

“It may perhaps be pointed out here that it has, of course, never been denied that employment can be rapidly increased, and a position of ‘full employment’ achieved in the shortest possible time by means of monetary expansion–least of all by those economists whose outlook has been influenced by the experience of a major inflation. All that has been contended is that the kind of full employment which can be created in this way is inherently unstable, and that to create employment by these means is to perpetuate fluctuations.
There may be desperate situations in which it may indeed be necessary to increase employment at all costs, even if it be only for a short period–perhaps the situation in which Dr. Brüning found himself in Germany in 1932 was such a situation in which desperate means would have been justified. But the economist should not conceal the fact that to aim at the maximum of employment which can be achieved in the short run by means of monetary policy is essentially the policy of the desperado who has nothing to lose and everything to gain from a short breathing space.” (Hayek 1975 [1939]: 64, n. 1).


http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.ro/2014/08/liquidationism-and-early-1930s-germany.html

Sunday, 9 April 2017

Cures for stagflation, my opinion



In contrast to Roger Mitchell's deficit spending + high interest rates, here's how I would tackle stagflation.

First of all, rationing, if the cause is heavily supply-side intense.
If it's not, I'd do the following:

-increase capital requirements for banks (because this is more effective at putting drag on the growth in bank debt than rate hikes)

-increase the Land-value-tax (Why? The land value tax in and of itself puts drag on the economy, but it also has other beneficial effects; it lowers production and consumption costs. It leaves the landowner with less bargaining power. People pay less rent to the landowners, which leaves more income to be orientated towards investment and consumption. At least, that's how I see it in theory)

-see which sectors struggle with demand and underemployment, and adjust (increase) Government spending and (lower) other taxes appropriately (aka deficit spending)

Messing around with interest rates, you're modifying the cost of settlement payments. This doesn't deter Animal Spirits. If people feel comfortable with their level of income, and decide that going into debt is good now to achieve their aims, then they're gonna do it. If more and more people feel this way, you got an economy that officially looks good, which leads to more private debt and more private consumption.
Now, mainstream view is that OMF net Government spending is inflationary. I say that's bullshit. If OMF (Overt Money Financing) isn't inflationary, then I don't see how higher interest bearing bonds or higher IOR will be less inflationary. During the war bonds era, they were used to drain liquidity and as a psychological tool to improve the spirits of the population. In most cases, when you went to the market, some goods were rationed. And you also had price controls.
I don't think Mitchell's higher interest rates would solve the inflation part. This is just my 2 cents. Feel free to add your own thoughts.

Friday, 7 April 2017

Trump commits an act of war against Syria

It's truly a fucked up world, when republicans and democrats are more of a threat to world peace than neo-nazis...
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-07...ia/8425132
And yes, Hillary would have done the same thing.

Also, THIS!
Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.
~Donald Trump, October 2012

Thursday, 6 April 2017

Consumption taxes are fine? No, they're not

Very disappointed with Bruening's reasoning here.
http://mattbruenig.com/2017/04/05/why-co...-are-fine/

I reply to him via twitter the following:

--- Matt, by regressive, critics mean that the levy is the same for the rich & poor. The rich won't feel the tax, the poor will.
Also, since you're talking about the US, US Federal Taxes don't fund anything. They simply create demand for the US dollar.
State governments, unlike the Fed Government, are constrained in their spending by what they can borrow, tax, and receive from the Fed Gov.
So if you want state governments to levy a 10% VAT, that's fine. But there's absolutely no reason why the Fed Gov should levy a VAT.
If you want to tax the rich, levy a progressive tax on all incomes, that only the opulent minority will qualify to pay. ---

Whether he realizes or not, Bruening is actually making the case for flat taxation, invoking that a person's tax obligation is proportional to his or her spending. Proportional equity. So the rich pay more, the poor pay less, at the same tax rate. Very strange to see this type of argument from a progressive.

Wednesday, 22 March 2017

Life is bitter when you see it clearly as a Deficit Owl

People who complain that Trident is the reason they can't have housing & health care are so aggravating. How exactly does a nuclear submarine deprive you of bricks, mortar, medical doctors, and pharmaceuticals? Similarly, people who complain that the Welfare system is the reason why they can't have smaller taxes are aggravating as well. How does a food stamp or a minimum pension spent on output deprive you of extra numbers on your balance sheet?