the Austrian School revived Enlightenment and laissez-faire thought while the Keynesian school revived Medieval and colonialist (state capitalist) thought.
Basically, Murray Rothbard (as well as David Friedman) but especially Milton Friedman and FA Hayek were more grounded in reality. I guess that like Ayn Rand, Mises and Keynes created cults (which must not be new and original or else they aren't cults) given that they believed in universal truths so much.
The enlightment classical liberal economists like Thomas Jefferson, FA Hayek, and Milton Friedman were probably the most correct (they changed their minds and didn't create a school that would later be dissected); unfortunately, we have an executive State and those with the most independent mind don't represent it. Unless they see a hyper-nationalist megalomaniac come to power, then they can't represent majority rule concurrently with majority rights which actually can't be under the 14th Amendment (see last question at the bottom of this post)
Of note, the Austrian economists are right about the forgotten depression of 1921. That is, Woodrow Wilson came back to his senses; so expenditures in his last year in office were less than they were the year before; the problem was WWI and the inflation that was used to fund it (Wilson's Admin was terribly incompetent except for Henry Morganthau Senior whose son was one of the competent members of FDR's Admin). But in order to not cause problems, absolute spending reductions should always come with absolute tax revenue reductions and debt be repudiated once enough interest is paid; the modern concept of austerity doesn't work when taxes or new taxes are threatened to be raised and when the spending isn't even absolutely frozen. Centralization of money (whether gold in an independent treasury system or congress authorizing legal tender) makes unbalanced budgets worse (whether from tax surplus or debt); the power to inflate, the power to collect what is inflated, and the power to borrow all at the same time are like being on a stimulant, an anti-psychotic, and anti-depressant at the same time (SRIs like Luvox cause anti-psychotics to stagnate in the blood and they cause additional unnecessary effects).
a problem in the Austrian School could be that some respect economic laws as if they are absolute without planning; the bigger problem now is that many, many Keynesians regard central planning as if it were more global than not. but some examine all sides of an issue and then go from one box to many more.
So now economic schools make little sense to me, like organized religion doesn't make any sense to me. They may be useful tools, but I can't use them.
questions:
1. why do YOU think modern austerity measures fail? [I guess bill clinton admin's policies went smoothly because his friends met with business leaders (the DLC met with the largest firms to let them know); the regs mostly increased private sector spending (i.e. medicare taxes were raised to all of payroll but then more deductions were allowed), the Family Leave Act of 1993, and expanding the war on drugs created more local cops. also, the rate of public spending increase was slowed from what the GOP was doing; and enforcement of regs wasn't too authoritarian under Bill Clinton so that balanced the budget.
It is quite different from how a future admin could be, so i am afraid of a future president or dictator bringing super-communistic mob rule (like I believe Joe biden and maybe elizabeth Warren could), hyper-nationalism (i.e., hillary clinton or any Neo-Republican Party member other than Newt), and eventually all conscripted against all internally with drones and electric fields abolishing freedom of movement and North Americans isolated (like what Joseph Stalin did)
and the top marginal rate increase didn't increase revenue by much especially given new deductions and credits as a safety measure; I guess Bill Clinton wanted it to make his party look fiscally responsible and populist at the same time].
2. What do you think about the Radical Republicans? [I believe they were evil, not gifted, and jealous while they only cared about blacks because they could profit from punishing southerners. many, many members of the GOP and Wilsonian Party as well as nearly all of Congress today have been sociopaths who did not have real love for anyone just like I may not. the GOP was simply allies with the blacks but the former eventually went against them leaving them in the South as the Party of Hamilton went back to being hyper-corporate and trying to murder all the indians]
3. What would you like to have been done instead of the 13th and 14th Amendments? [Relevant note as to why an ITP will definitely never be President again and why the Radical Republicans' legislation preserved Warfare while making no one happy: 1. the 13th Amendment ended precision in the Constitution (i.e., an individual contracting with an individual master can be beneficial for self-determination and protection especially without a powerful central govt) and the 14th Amendment damn well outlawed precision
2. the fugitive slave acts should've been repealed outright
3. the Neo-Republicans in Congress at that time were just as racist, angry, and power hungry as they are today given that they wouldn't welcome the blacks to their own homes or even contract with the underground railroad; they wouldn't even allow self-determination in the Southern States where they weren't even elected
4. just like 90-99% of the GOP then wanted to punish Southerners they put into poverty back then and get rich off of it, the GOP wants existing ideas like taxes to be reformed for increased govt revenue, war to keep arms in their hands, and fed reserve transparency to preserve law, medical, and banking institutions over original production (rather than gradually support reduction of policy enforcement so that more have a chance; i guess they don't cooperate with the president because he is the most fluidly intelligent and creative of three, the other two most fluidly intelligent and creative u.S. Presidents being James Madison and Thomas Jefferson)]
Basically, Murray Rothbard (as well as David Friedman) but especially Milton Friedman and FA Hayek were more grounded in reality. I guess that like Ayn Rand, Mises and Keynes created cults (which must not be new and original or else they aren't cults) given that they believed in universal truths so much.
The enlightment classical liberal economists like Thomas Jefferson, FA Hayek, and Milton Friedman were probably the most correct (they changed their minds and didn't create a school that would later be dissected); unfortunately, we have an executive State and those with the most independent mind don't represent it. Unless they see a hyper-nationalist megalomaniac come to power, then they can't represent majority rule concurrently with majority rights which actually can't be under the 14th Amendment (see last question at the bottom of this post)
Of note, the Austrian economists are right about the forgotten depression of 1921. That is, Woodrow Wilson came back to his senses; so expenditures in his last year in office were less than they were the year before; the problem was WWI and the inflation that was used to fund it (Wilson's Admin was terribly incompetent except for Henry Morganthau Senior whose son was one of the competent members of FDR's Admin). But in order to not cause problems, absolute spending reductions should always come with absolute tax revenue reductions and debt be repudiated once enough interest is paid; the modern concept of austerity doesn't work when taxes or new taxes are threatened to be raised and when the spending isn't even absolutely frozen. Centralization of money (whether gold in an independent treasury system or congress authorizing legal tender) makes unbalanced budgets worse (whether from tax surplus or debt); the power to inflate, the power to collect what is inflated, and the power to borrow all at the same time are like being on a stimulant, an anti-psychotic, and anti-depressant at the same time (SRIs like Luvox cause anti-psychotics to stagnate in the blood and they cause additional unnecessary effects).
a problem in the Austrian School could be that some respect economic laws as if they are absolute without planning; the bigger problem now is that many, many Keynesians regard central planning as if it were more global than not. but some examine all sides of an issue and then go from one box to many more.
So now economic schools make little sense to me, like organized religion doesn't make any sense to me. They may be useful tools, but I can't use them.
questions:
1. why do YOU think modern austerity measures fail? [I guess bill clinton admin's policies went smoothly because his friends met with business leaders (the DLC met with the largest firms to let them know); the regs mostly increased private sector spending (i.e. medicare taxes were raised to all of payroll but then more deductions were allowed), the Family Leave Act of 1993, and expanding the war on drugs created more local cops. also, the rate of public spending increase was slowed from what the GOP was doing; and enforcement of regs wasn't too authoritarian under Bill Clinton so that balanced the budget.
It is quite different from how a future admin could be, so i am afraid of a future president or dictator bringing super-communistic mob rule (like I believe Joe biden and maybe elizabeth Warren could), hyper-nationalism (i.e., hillary clinton or any Neo-Republican Party member other than Newt), and eventually all conscripted against all internally with drones and electric fields abolishing freedom of movement and North Americans isolated (like what Joseph Stalin did)
and the top marginal rate increase didn't increase revenue by much especially given new deductions and credits as a safety measure; I guess Bill Clinton wanted it to make his party look fiscally responsible and populist at the same time].
2. What do you think about the Radical Republicans? [I believe they were evil, not gifted, and jealous while they only cared about blacks because they could profit from punishing southerners. many, many members of the GOP and Wilsonian Party as well as nearly all of Congress today have been sociopaths who did not have real love for anyone just like I may not. the GOP was simply allies with the blacks but the former eventually went against them leaving them in the South as the Party of Hamilton went back to being hyper-corporate and trying to murder all the indians]
3. What would you like to have been done instead of the 13th and 14th Amendments? [Relevant note as to why an ITP will definitely never be President again and why the Radical Republicans' legislation preserved Warfare while making no one happy: 1. the 13th Amendment ended precision in the Constitution (i.e., an individual contracting with an individual master can be beneficial for self-determination and protection especially without a powerful central govt) and the 14th Amendment damn well outlawed precision
2. the fugitive slave acts should've been repealed outright
3. the Neo-Republicans in Congress at that time were just as racist, angry, and power hungry as they are today given that they wouldn't welcome the blacks to their own homes or even contract with the underground railroad; they wouldn't even allow self-determination in the Southern States where they weren't even elected
4. just like 90-99% of the GOP then wanted to punish Southerners they put into poverty back then and get rich off of it, the GOP wants existing ideas like taxes to be reformed for increased govt revenue, war to keep arms in their hands, and fed reserve transparency to preserve law, medical, and banking institutions over original production (rather than gradually support reduction of policy enforcement so that more have a chance; i guess they don't cooperate with the president because he is the most fluidly intelligent and creative of three, the other two most fluidly intelligent and creative u.S. Presidents being James Madison and Thomas Jefferson)]
Facebook
Twitter