Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 02, 2021

On The Breeding Of Money - by Gordog

Gordog

Some continue to delude themselves about the so-called US economy, which is nothing but a house of cards---and this meaningless, completely fabricated 'metric' of GDP. In real terms, China's economy is already bigger by half then the US. And that is being charitable.

Let us review some basic facts about how NUMBERS actually work. This is known as MATHEMATICS.

Take for instance the Ponzi Scheme. This is an ingenious bilking scam where a group of investors is promised a guaranteed rate of return. Since there is no PRODUCTIVE business of any kind that can generate any return, the only way to pay those initial investors is to draw in more investors over the next term, usually a year. The incoming investors are likewise paid their return by the next crop of investors, etc. Now it is obvious just from this description that the amount of new investors has to INCREASE each year, in order for this to stay afloat.

The mathematical underpinning of this scheme is exponential growth. This is a mathematical function where the growth of something is a function of the EXPONENT of TIME.

In simple terms: if you start with a single cell that splits in two...then those two each split in two and so on, it is obvious that the number of cells doubles at a given rate of time. In a Petri dish, such organisms will rapidly multiply in number until they have exhausted all the nutrients available...and everybody DIES!

Now let's consider a bank that is lending money at interest. Here we have a group of BORROWERS rather than investors.

If in the first year, the bank has a given number of borrowers, it will receive back not just the amount of money it has lent, but an additional amount of money in interest. This accumulation of interest will continue building in perpetuity, according to the exponential math exactly like the Ponzi Scheme or Petri dish.

This is the fundamental mathematics of both. Only they are mirror images of each other. One is drawing in lenders [investors], while the other is drawing in borrowers. From the wiki entry on exponential growth:

Finance:

For instance if you borrow money at a rate of 9 percent interest per year, the amount you owe is DOUBLE after just 8 years [provided you are required to just pay it all back in one lump sum and not payments].

Now let's take into account that the ONLY way for brand new money to come into existence is if it is created as a BANK LOAN. That is actually how our system works. The borrower can be a consumer, a corporation or a government. It doesn't matter. But somebody has to step up to the bank counter and say 'I want a loan' before any new money can come into existence.

So here is the catch 22: Because the borrowers in any given year are also paying back interest, that means that more and more brand new money has to come into being each year, simply to account for that extra interest money that wasn't there before!

So you need an ever greater amount of borrowers stepping up and asking for loans.

Where do they come from? Can you just keep going like this forever?

Obviously the Petri dish and the Ponzi Scheme both tell us that this is a house built on foundations of sand. It cannot possibly continue in perpetuity. It all has to come crashing down.

Consider that 100 years ago, very few ordinary people needed to borrow money. Oftentimes people would buy a house or a car with money they had saved. By the time of the postwar years of the 1940s, you already had a new kind of borrowing culture emerging, where people would often seek credit to buy their own home more quickly.

[Recall the scene in Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, where George Bailey [Jimmy Stewart] who runs a family savings and loan that lends to aspiring homeowners, confronts the badguy Henry Potter who is a slumlord and wants to ruin the small family S&L.]

For good or bad, this depiction of getting ordinary folks to borrow money so they can more quickly own their own home, as something positive and progressive, took root. Of course getting people to borrow for buying a house and car was just the beginning. Soon, you needed a whole new crop of borrowers, so we started women entering the workforce and becoming part of the debt slave pool.

[Remember, just like the Ponzi Scheme, the interest lending scheme needs EVER GREATER numbers of borrowers each year.]

Then when that dried up, you had to start importing brand new PEOPLE, ie immigrants! Today that is an increasingly fraught subject as the wheels continue to come off this Ponzi machine and there is less to go around for everybody. So people start resenting the newcomers. Yet, the powers that be insist on bringing in ever more people! They are needed. Each one is going to go to the bank and borrow to buy a car, a house, etc. Just like that Ponzi Scheme somehow has to find new investors to avert going tits up. Then you had credit cards, and then a very big one: EDUCATION. Now you have not only mom and pop debt slaving away, but even junior has to be pressed into the chain gang, before having even gotten an education or a vocation in life.

Is there any possible stone that has been left unturned in the search for new debt slaves? And this is all supposed to be so 'glorious'?

Some have foreseen all of those problems, such as Michael Hudson. He told us long ago that ancient civilizations had all come up against the same problem with EXPONENTIAL MATH: When you attach interest to loans, the amount of debt reaches unmanageable levels and has to simply be wiped clean. We see this from the graph of exponential math:


bigger

A real productive economy can be expected to grow only linearly, as in the red line. And even then, at some point it cannot grow any more!

But the amount of accumulated debt starts overtaking the amount produced by the real economy until it is double, triple or even many more times that of the real, productive economy. Obviously, the only thing you are doing is producing money itself, not actual and real things! That is why we have had ZIRP for more than a decade now. Zero interest rate policy. Not wanting to actually write off unpayable debt, at least cutting the money creation rate to zero is supposed to accomplish the same thing.

Only it's not working. And it's not ever going to work.

This is the fundamental problem. And the fact is that the moneychangers who are in charge of directing this whole Ponzi ball of wax are much much dumber than they imagine themselves to be. They work like Wile E Coyote: trying the same scheme over and over [greed], but hoping for different results. But the end result is always the same: BLOW UP IN FACE! And that's not even to mention the absolute morons who look up to these idiots as some kind of 'bright' people, lol! And absorb all of their made-up bullshit practically by osmosis!

But the REAL results cannot be papered over. The US is a third-world dump across vast swathes of its living terrain. Look at a comparison of the Moscow and New York subways, for instance.

Many of these dimwits who believe the bullshit peddlers also seem to think that the US still has some kind of advantage or lead in technology. WRONG! In real technologies that are hard to do, like rocket science and nuclear, the US is nowhere [despite a lot of ridiculous hype about the former]. China is already ahead in many key aspects. Even in consumer electronics like computer chips, which is not actually any kind of difficult technology, but simply a commodity business dominated by countries like Taiwan and Korea, China is systematically plowing ahead. The only real flagship industry where the US still has something left in the tank is in civil aviation manufacturing, although even here formerly great companies like Boeing have recently shown to be moving downhill quickly as they become 'financialized.'

The bottom line is that our physical world is governed by real, foundational principles, not by made-up bullshit that says Ponzi Schemes can succeed. They can't. No matter how much you contort yourself to believe that.

On the matter of wealth and gaining it, The Great Thinker had much to say:

There are two sorts of wealth-getting, as I have said; one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade: the former necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another.

The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest.

And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

Aristotle, Politics Book One, Part X

There is no getting around these foundational truths. No amount of bullshit from various flim flam artists on Wall Street or Madison Avenue is going to change the result.

It's quite obvious that the wise and learned folks who are carefully guiding China along the path to a truly Great Society have taken these known truths to heart.

Posted by b on September 2, 2021 at 15:48 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

@157 ADKC "These planes seem to be a real threat to the western civil aircraft industry "

Nothing a good dose of sanction-regime can't fix....

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Sep 4 2021 6:20 utc | 201

Cyril @Sep4 6:18 #201

You are determined to see what you want to see.

I'm not saying that there aren't problems in USA/Empire. It's just not as simple to construct a worthwhile metaphor for those problems as you would like.

So you resort to what is essentially fantasy to satisfy your bias. But your self-satisfaction in doing so is a waste of time for the rest of us.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 4 2021 7:46 utc | 202

Cyril "Since creating the towering monument of the UN, the Empire has declined."

Post WWII, but especially post the collapse of the soviet union, the US is the largest and most powerful empire the world has seen.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 4 2021 7:54 utc | 203

Thanks to Gordog for having engaged the Boeing 737Max subject here!

Even if it has inadvertently derailed the original posts subject - a very important matter in my opinion , that requires that future generations are taught and understand it from an early age to avoid being trapped by false credo of what money is and how it is created (and yes destroyed). Maybe further articles or reposts here by b of actual expert articles and debates as opposed to the old pseudo scientific Economic religion would be welcome.

That aside - the best and most succinct comment by Gordog on the the 737 fiasco that I appreciate is this one https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/09/on-the-breeding-of-money-by-gordog.html?cid=6a00d8341c640e53ef026bdeee10ad200c#comment-6a00d8341c640e53ef026bdeee10ad200c

Really appreciate your great work on making that as simple as can be for most non-pilots to understand.

I will always be wary of that plane no matter how much they rebrand it!
Why Airbus and Rolls Royce haven’t jumped to the new world order to secure and retain the future is a mystery.
Anyway thanks again Gordog.

Posted by: DG | Sep 4 2021 11:32 utc | 204

Posted by: Seer | Sep 3 2021 23:30 utc | 187

I don't see that the basic notion of rolling over a loan is a Ponzi on its own.
_______________________________________________________
Right. You have to know more about the production and income flows that underpin the debt to know for sure.

As Hyman Minsky pointed out in his "Financial Instability Hypothesis" rolling over debt is the one of the distinguishing features of what Minsky called "ponzi finance". Debt is all about expectations. Current money is exchanged for a promise of future money on the expectation that the future money will somehow be forthcoming. When that future money comes from more borrowing(lending) and not from production it should be obvious why that is a scam that is unlikely to last.

Rolling over debt was the driving engine of the bubble in the pre-2008 US real estate market. Before 2008 some $6 trillion was piled into the US secondary mortgage market (mostly as Private Label Securities ) to fund loans to borrowers with poor credit scores, who put no money down, and were not required to document any income or assets, and often were extended additional credit each month because the borrower did not have the means to make the payments. These loans were structured so that they had to be rolled over. That is, the mortgages had to be rolled over in less than 15-30 months by the borrower either selling the house or refinancing or defaulting. Regardless of how the loans were rolled over during those bubble years the price of the house could be expected to increase by 20%-50% from the start of the loan and thus the lenders (investors) could expect a good return. In other words, as long as house prices rose rapidly the future money that would return profits to old investment would be paid from new investment funding the re-sale or re-finance of the house.


Posted by: jinn | Sep 4 2021 13:52 utc | 205

DG, thanks for all your comments! I read all of them! 👍

Posted by: Gordog | Sep 4 2021 17:01 utc | 206

@guidoamm #198

Even if some private entities are granted preferential rates that doesn't change the bigger picture. Moreover, can you explain how this, along with zero interest rates, will lead to "overcapacity" (isn't that Marx's overproduction category?) and how my assumptions go out of the window? I don't get your reasoning here.

Posted by: galerkin | Sep 4 2021 21:08 utc | 207

Posted by: galerkin | Sep 4 2021 21:08 utc | 208

Moreover, can you explain how this, along with zero interest rates, will lead to "overcapacity" (isn't that Marx's overproduction category?) and how my assumptions go out of the window? I don't get your reasoning here.
______________________________________________________________________
Your assumptions (posted @100) are wrong (backwards) because you assume it is the lender that that lends because he expects the borrower to produce more wealth.
It is the borrower that borrows because he expects the result will be more wealth. Homeowners borrow because they expect that will bring more wealth (less of a drain on their income then renting). Businesses borrow because they expect to expand production and produce more wealth. Workers borrow to buy a car because they expect more wealth from owning a running car than losing their job because they can't get to work.
Lenders lend because they expect to get the money back in the future. That might be because they believe the borrower will produce more wealth or it might be something entirely different, like they expect the borrower already will have enough wealth to cover the loan.

guidoamm's implied claim that zero interest are somehow involved in this is just internet mythology.
Zero interest rates are the result of market forces. When you have more people wanting to earn interest on the dollars that they own than there are dollars that borrowers want to borrow, then interest rates fall. That is a simple supply and demand curve.

Posted by: jinn | Sep 4 2021 22:48 utc | 208

@ Gordog thanks for your kind response.

I appreciate expert opinion, especially if it seems to run against the grain of the MSM Manufactured Narratives of ‘common sense’ and Truth because they say it is - the kings new clothes knee jerk always reflexively rises in me. Politicians are almost all bought so whatever they say is instantly to be treated with scepticism - “why is this bastard telling me this lie?”

Hudson who has been referred here is an expert many believe - I don’t know enough of his work to have reached a judgement on it - reflexively or otherwise.
Your highly educative writing is at this oasis most thirst quenching and I hope you keep it up.
On Political Economy - Money, Tax etc I have followed the daily writings on a wide range of topics by Professor Richard Murphy and some others and of course the commentators on his pieces - most as useful as are here at MoA.
I hope if you have time you (& all here) may give him some consideration.

I’ll leave it at that with this finally link to his recent piece on the Multiplier effect which is right up your alley as it’s about mathematics in some sense.

A short quote:

“ When the government says it can’t afford education, healthcare and green investment for example, it’s simply not telling the truth. As these things pretty much pay for themselves it’s ignorance or dogmatic denial that motivates such claims.

That’s also true on taxes: tax cuts for the wealthy really don’t boost the economy, they just boost social division. So you have to ask, is that the aim of the who promote them?

The point is, knowing this matters. The next time a politician says we can’t afford something ask them about the multiplier effect of the proposed spend. ”

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/08/15/the-multiplier-shows-that-not-all-government-spending-is-equal/

Posted by: DG | Sep 4 2021 23:51 utc | 209

DG @Sep4 23:51 #210:

I appreciate expert opinion ... Your highly educative writing is at this oasis most thirst quenching ...

Your praise is very misleading.

Gordog/b's comment-turned-post ("On the Breeding of Money") is crippled by serious flaws:

  • China's economy is bigger by one and half

    But China's population is four times that of USA.

    Gordog pulls this statistic out to alarm us but the subject of how and why China's economy has grown relative to USA's is a complex matter. Other countries have also grown faster than USA. And USA's failure to keep up is not just mis-management, or ponzi-finance scams, but HUGE misallocation of resources - chiefly USA bloated military, intelligence, and police forces.

  • That is why we have had ZIRP for more than a decade now ...

    Incredibly, Gordog fails to mention the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. So we are left with the impression that normal increases in consumer debt (like that generated by the women in the workforce that he cites) is responsible for ZIRP.

    Well, 2008 GFC was anything but normal and the Fed initiated Quantitative Easing (QE) to address the resulting debt overhand - which Gordog may be confusing with ZIRP because US interests rates were already very low before 2008 GFC and many believe (even before 2008) that the reluctance to raise them is related to the massive derivative positions that would go haywire if rates spiked upward.

  • ... more and more brand new money has to come into being each year

    Gordog is wrong his view of money-creation as a ponzi-scheme. He gets there mostly because he fails to consider the 2008 GFC.

    2008 GFC was a massive control fraud. Banks collectively stopped adhering to lending standards, their regulators allowed it, and the government bailed them out with public money

  • Gordog's comparison between NYC and Moscow subways

    This comparison is not valid. As I have explained in pior comments:

    • the Moscow subway was always maintained in top condition (as one might expect from a communist government);
    • the low point for NYC subways was the 1970's, not today;
    • a more accurate comparison would be Moscow to Washington D.C.;
    • the Empire has likely been at the height of its prestige/power only a short time ago (1990-2012) and the power that it still commands should not be under-estimated by a video.

  • Wealth inequality (mentioned by Gordog in the comments )

    When defending his comment-turned-post, Gordog writes about how the rich have been getting an increasing share of the value of what is produced by the economy. But this economy-wide measure isn't really relevant to his claims of a ponzi-interest scam that is forcing (via math) USA into the gutter.

    Yes inequality is troubling, but it's used here as just another sore-spot for Gordog to apply pressure. In fact, the rick are getting richer because of a multitude of control frauds that get government sanction: Like the military budget, the Bush tax cuts, and legal usury (payday loans, credit card interest, etc.).


Anyone that understands the above faults is unimpressed (to say the least) with this comment-turned-post from Gordog/b.

And anyone that is really interested in reform/change, and has some grounding in the subject matter that Gordon tackles here, would not ignore the 2008 Global Financial Crisis which laid bare the fact that our government serves oligarchic interests over the interests of the people. That might also lead to an examination of Saint Obama's betrayals: making the Bush tax cuts permanent; not providing a public option for healthcare; bragging about his drone targeting, and more.

More worthwhile matters for reformers are things like: how TPTB defeat public anger and critics (divisive politics, faux populist leaders, bread & ciruses, etc.); the true nature of elite malfeasance (control frauds, not ponzi math); cultural issues that are used against us; political and elite mechanisms (AIPAC, Epstein, etc.); the best ways to reach deluded people; etc.


To sum up: Gordog may be expert in aeronautical matters, but that doesn't necessarily translate well to other areas as you suggested by your comment.

Gordog's aerospace expertise means that I and others will take his anti-737MAX views seriously. But I and many others will do so MORE because we don't trust Boeing/FAA THAN that we DO TRUST an anonymous blogger. Afterall, Gordog couldn't even back up his assertion that Boeing engineers had resigned to protest MCAS. While that may not seem like a big deal, that kind of thing might make some less willing to trust his view on other matters.

PS Like other moa readers, I'm looking forward to Gordog's guest-post on Space. That's a subject that I expect his expertise will be put to good use.

<> <> <> <>

I never thought of moa as a place for a cathartic bitch session but I think that's what b was aiming for when he made Gordog's comment into a post.

I would never denying anyone their righteous anger but that anger can't be allowed to distract from the truth of what we face and the hard work of correcting the problems.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 5 2021 4:46 utc | 210

JR,
Thanks for your further underlining of your opinion - which I don’t take lightly.
If you have also read my comments here you may also understand that I also have firm views on certain matters as we are all allowed to here.
I have given everyone the links to back up my opinion. What more can be asked? As Gordog has politely pointed out to you earlier - I don’t think I can help any further with your buzzing bonnet! Which does not mean that I seriously disagree with much of what you say. All best.

Posted by: DG | Sep 5 2021 8:30 utc | 211

While I'm at it, I should also add that, Hudson's prescription (modeled on the ancient debt forgiveness every 7 years) is controversial. We don't have an ancient economy. And we HAVE/HAD(*) a means of debt forgiveness: bankruptcy.

And the biggest problem debt is government-industry collusion: when regulatory capture and the revolving-door create a situation where consumers are hoodwinked/lied without consequence. The financial industry bailouts unmistakably demonstrate the collusion.

But that's not just a problem for finance. We see these control frauds everywhere now. When you don't fight the control frauds then you encourage them. This is known as moral hazard.

We see the same dynamic repeated again and again: Weak justifications overcome numerous critics that raise clear and cogent warnings that "this will not end well!" Just like Afghanistan. They do it because the can. They do it because someone/some group has a big financial interest. They do it because, when all is said and done, no on will be held accountable.

* Joe Biden helped to crack down on the ability of the poor to free themselves of debt through bankruptcy.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 5 2021 14:32 utc | 212

@jinn #208
"Your assumptions (posted @100) are wrong (backwards) because you assume it is the lender that that lends because he expects the borrower to produce more wealth."

For the love of god, people, can you please stop dealing with individuals when you talk about the economy? Whatever assumption you hold as to how lending money happens, it is a matter of fact that, COLLECTIVELY, if it is expected from ALL the borrowers to return their loan PLUS an additional quantity, that quantity doesn't come out of nowhere. On a general, social level, it has to be produced. If you ignore the fact that money represents wealth, then this appears as a paradox : how can a bank expect *more* money than it lent, unless someone prints it? The solution to the mystery is that the burden will fall collectively on the workers. At this level of analysis we simply don't care why individuals (people or businesses) get loans. It is the total effect we are interested in and that's what I tried to elucidate on my first comment.

Posted by: galerkin | Sep 5 2021 21:00 utc | 213

Jackrabbit @ 187

There's a bit of a distinction between the product and the person. Yes, I understand that if we're talking about criminality as can be tried in a court of "law" that "KNOWING" is key, that if one doesn't know that one is engaging in a Ponzi then one cannot be accused of such.

BUT, a Ponzi can be a Ponzi on its own. That is, regardless of whether anyone engaged in an action is aware of the totality of the actions that doesn't mean that those actions aren't happening, or have happened. I guess it's like "murder" vs. "manslaughter;" the dead person is still dead, the damage is done.

My argument is, and will continue to be, that the entire economic System is a Ponzi because it's based on the premise of perpetual growth on a finite planet: proof is that it has no instruction to work in the opposite direction (which, of course, would be to return back to a state of non-existence: negative growth would eventually lead to zero existence [when one person is left, then ANY accounting system is meaningless]). If we were to pin down very high-ranking officials (men behind the curtains) they'd have to concede all of this: likely plenty of pension managers who know the stresses of having to figure out how to create inflated numbers, "returns."

Posted by: Seer | Sep 5 2021 21:03 utc | 214

galerkin said:
if it is expected from ALL the borrowers to return their loan PLUS an additional quantity, that quantity doesn't come out of nowhere... how can a bank expect *more* money than it lent, unless someone prints it?
___________________________________________________________

The bank "prints" the money when it lends. That money circulates in the economy.
That circulating money might be used to pay the interest on many loans over and over again.

The flawed assumption in this silly internet story that "more money needs to be created to pay the interest on bank loans" is that interest paid to a bank must disappear forever. That reasoning is false.
The income paid to banks is no different than income to any other business. The money goes back into the economy and is used over and over again.

Posted by: jinn | Sep 5 2021 23:59 utc | 215

@jinn #215

You are referring to the fractional system. Even with it my argument still stands.

"The flawed assumption in this silly internet story that "more money needs to be created to pay the interest on bank loans" is that interest paid to a bank must disappear forever. That reasoning is false."

Who assumed that interest money must disappear forever? We need simple reasoning here and I will suggest you read my initial comment carefully. You have one system where one institution (let's assume we have only one bank) is lending money on interest. If that money is not used *productively* (and that is by no means certain), then this is the start of a ponzi scheme. Because the additional quantity all borrowers need to return is not just printed money, it is wealth represented by money, which has to be generated. If significant portion of the economy is devoted to non-productive activities (like the US/UK for example), then the tendency is towards "ponzification". Right now the zero interest rate policy implemented everywhere has two aims: 1) to counter as much as it can the ponzification and b) to encourage ppl to not just deposit money and earn passive income, but *invest*. And the point here is that investing isn't the whole story: The money need to be invested in *productive* sectors, not, for example, the FIRE economy etc..

Posted by: galerkin | Sep 6 2021 0:46 utc | 216

@vk #166
Marx had some good ideas, but the reality is still that nothing he predicted, happened.
Some of it is ascribe-able to how times have changed, but the rest of it is Marx being simply not correct. Core to what Marx wrote is that industrialization and capital would lead to revolution - that has not occurred even once.
This is a major fail.
Another major problem is his attempt to distill labor's contribution into a scientific unit - the util. This also is a failure: clearly a util in the 1860s is dramatically different than a util in 2021 - and even in 2021, a util in the United States of America is dramatically different than a util in Guatemala.
Even the identical person, creates utils of different utility. The same Guatemalan laborer transplanted into New York city has an entirely different level of economic survival.
I don't blame Marx for not being right given all these (and other) fundamental misconceptions but I do blame the people who treat Marx's writing as a Bible. They're treating his words like gospel when they should be treated as a baseline upon which to build.

Posted by: c1ue | Sep 6 2021 0:51 utc | 217

@William Gruff #177
The comparison is invalid.
Newtonian physics is actually workably correct for the vast majority of phenomenon in the real world - quantum mechanics fills in the spaces where it is not.
Marx's work, however, has not been correct in any form or implementation to date. As such, it is how can we ascribe any independent value to it?
At the end of the day, if a theory never is proven in practice, it is wrong.
What we have seen, repeatedly, in the years both before Marx and after is that social relationships are all relative.
The French Revolution was executed on the basis of Equality, Fraternity and Liberty - and immediately succeeded by a dictator and king.
The Russian aristocracy was overthrown by peasants and then the USSR was dominated by bureaucrats until it fell.
The British aristocracy was more graceful about surrendering some rights when it had to but never officially being booted out - and they're still the largest landholding Britons around.
And in the US today - we have an American oligarchy which overtly pushes for minority rights even as it tries to destroy the economic and political basis of the middle classes it rules over, even as the federal bureaucracy keeps growing in power and wealth. All this under a supposed elective republic but which has a Senate with less turnover than the Soviet Central Committee. Even feudal lords in the peak of feudalism occasionally died in battle or from assassination/poisoning/accident.

Posted by: c1ue | Sep 6 2021 1:00 utc | 218

@c1ue #216

You haven't understood a word from Marx, that's for sure.

Posted by: galerkin | Sep 6 2021 12:31 utc | 219

Hi Gordog;

Please email me the source or a pdf of this excellent article.

I want to put it (with attribution) on my site as a companion to "Mathematics of Rule":

https://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/32

I also commented your article at informationclearinghouse:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/56744.htm

Regards;
Bill

Posted by: Bill Ross | Sep 6 2021 17:25 utc | 220

@galerkin #219
The standard response of the religious: you don't "understand" what is really meant.
Facts are facts: did anything Marx predict come to pass?
The answer is: no.
The rest is theorizing - which again, if it doesn't actually result in usable/useful/verifiable outcomes, is meaningless.

Posted by: c1ue | Sep 7 2021 19:59 utc | 221

Bill Ross @ 220: Thanks for your kind words. I had no idea that Info Clearinghouse had reposted my piece.

As for your request, you may simply copy the article and repost it, as far as I am concerned. Although I believe Bernhard owns the rights to anything he publishes here. Anyway, I think fair use covers these things.

I do not have this 'article' in any format, either as a word file or pdf or anything. I typed this out here on this website as a comment on a recent articel about China. For some reason it never posted, perhaps because of links I included or whatever, but the Bernhard surprised me by posting this as an article the next day. I guess those 'autorejected' comments go to a file where they can be reviewed or whatever.

Hope that helps.

Posted by: Gordog | Sep 7 2021 21:25 utc | 222

you can learn here how to make money

Posted by: Dany | Sep 13 2021 14:29 utc | 223

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.