42 votes

Economics in one Graphic

Who holds the only gun, holds the only bag.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

War Is a Racket!


Of course, Wars are fought for profit.

General Smedley Butler wrote a famous book called "War is a Racket" that documented all the various ways.

Halliburton, Exxon-Mobile, Chevron, Blackwater, The Caryle Group, Raytheon, etc. have literally made hundreds of billions of dollars from these recent Wars.

And the International Bankers make the most profit of them all (and control the Media to promote the Wars).


Indeed war is a racket.

And you'll not find me defending banksters.

But war is not profitable. Period. Full stop.

You can only gain from war if you can socialize the cost onto someone else.

This is all of socialism. You can only gain, without creating something that benefits someone else, by socializing the cost onto someone else.

War, in it's modern form, does not, and cannot, exist in a free market because it does not make a profit.

If I steal from you that's not profit.

If I enslave your child to fight in my war for oil, that's not profit.

That happened because you granted the state power to do so. That's a concession from the state. That's rent.

Unearned gain.

Rent is no more profit than rape is lovemaking.

If you want others not to pretend we're living under socialism you should not pretend we're living under capitalism. It's disingenuous.

We're living under fascism. You know it. If you want to debate capitalism vs socialism fine, much willing to discuss it.

But if you pretend we're living in capitalism and the problem is profit you're lying, or you're very confused and not up to this debate.

Cyril's picture

Well, duh. Who do you think profits from wars?

Well, duh.

Who do you think profits from wars?

Answer: the control freaks bullies fascists.

Who do you think installs the fascists, in the first place?

Answer: their cousins, the socialists, blood and sweat sucking leeches, in the early stage of fascism.

Now...

What do you think capitalists only wish for?

Answer: to trade, and have fun. In times of peace.

Only peace is great for trade, to save, and then retire in a nice quiet place.

Capitalists, the true ones, they flee from wars and want nothing to do with it.

Because they're neither morons or sick bastards.

So, I hate to break it to you, but...

... everything you may have heard in public schools isn't true, just so you know.

Sorry about that. Their lie, not mine.

I know: they tried to brainwash me, too.

Guess what.

Them loser leeches and bitches, they failed.

Big time.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Nonsense


Its always the Corporations and the profiteers that want the Wars.

Halliburton,
Exxon-Mobile,
Raytheoon,
Chevron,
The Caryle Group,
The Council on Foreign Relations (a private group),
Blackwater,
General Electric,

It isn't some Hippie, living in a commune, who wants the Wars here. It's always the financial profiteers.


You listed all member of the Federal Reserve banking cartel.

The Federal Reserve is a banking cartel created by Congress 100 years ago with monopoly control of the money supply.

Congress created this creature and regulations they pass protect this creature.

Free includes debt-free!

Wrong


I listed private, for-profit, Corporations that have zero elected members (by the public), or public officials.

They are all privatey controlled, including the profiteering Central Bank ("Federal" Reserve - a deceptive name) itself.

And the Central Bank was not "created by" Congress. It was conceived and planned by J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, Paul Warburg, and other International Banksters (in association with The Rothschilds Banking Empire). These private individuals used their wealth to setup a plant in the Congress, Nelson Aldrich, who then sheparded the bill through under different names. It failed the first couple of times he had tried to introduce it. He eventually succeeded after he changed the name, and held the vote on Christmas Eve -- when most of the Congress was away.

All the initiative here came from private individuals, and private wealth (in search of more).


Only Federal Reserve members can visit the Discount window.

Only Federal Reserve members got bailouts, legal by Act of Congress in 1913.

Almost all government contracts go to Federal Reserve members.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf
On Friday, March 14, 2008, the Federal Reserve Board voted to authorize FRBNY to provide a $12.9 billion loan to Bear Stearns through JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, the largest bank subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPMC), and to accept $13.8 billion of Bear Stearns’s assets as collateral.

On September 21, 2008, the Federal Reserve Board announced that it would extend credit... U.S. and London broker-dealer subsidiaries of Merrill Lynch & Co. (Merrill Lynch), Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (Goldman Sachs), and Morgan Stanley to provide support to these subsidiaries as they became part of bank holding companies that would be regulated by the Federal Reserve System.

Fed Audit looked at

AIG
Bank of America
Citigroup "
General Electric Company
Goldman Sachs Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
JPMC JP Morgan Chase & Co.
KPMG KPMG LLP
Lehman Brothers Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Merrill Lynch Merrill Lynch & Co.
PIMCO Pacific Investment Management Company LLC

US Treasury Comptroller of the Currency by law tracks paid in reserves and stock issues. He keeps the complete list.

Free includes debt-free!

Cyril's picture

"US Treasury Controller"

"US Treasury Controller"; thanks for the refresher, Paul.

"Controller" indeed. Or rather, "manager".

Yes, and all the below is for LibertyBaby's information:

Who pays this controller guy? Your taxes, my taxes.

Who maintains HIS tax-payer paid job and salary in place? Congress. By allowing the Federal Reserve System to be installed in the first place. By allowing a fraudulent system to be "controlled" (such a tasteless joke).

Congress allowed the Federal Reserve Act to pass, not the bankers, although it sure serves a few of them.

Who keeps voting Congress in? The people who don't pay attention to what corrupt Congress is up to. With or without bankers around.

Some or most of these bankers - or, "banksters" - WOULD BE IDIOTS not to try make profit of A CORRUPT BIG STATE, since they have the opportunity.

The big state is their TOOL.

Why don't people pay attention to these crooks, public or private? Maybe because sometimes, some of them GET SOME entitlements from Congress, at the expense of others?

Interested in a free lunch? In a free ride?

Think foodstamps. Think "affordable healthcare" (hahahaha. Yeah, right)

And what am I talking about now?

Only but good old socialism.

There you have it: the full loop.

Did you look up "Gosbank", btw?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosbank

Rings a bell? Although, move a little bit more to the west, please... cross the Altantic ocean. There you are!

Look at these beautiful LEECHES:

http://www.newyorkfed.org/index.html

You are at the right address. Enjoy the show.

The CENTRAL bankers and their CRONIES bankers could be denied ANY power to create ANY fake money if the people REALLY DIDN'T want them to.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10

Damn it. THAT is what's denied. Ignored. Mocked. Buried.

And it is ongoing since 1913. It used to be half-rigged till 1971, August 15, as it was somewhat "backed" by gold.

It is now COMPLETELY rigged ever since.

Wake up to that, for a change.

Oh, and to this, too:

http://www.dailypaul.com/286406/the-american-people-can-star...

That might help.

Or, okay, just stay IGNORANT.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Wars are not for profit

Wars are not for profit because wars are not profitable.

It's the collective power you so lust after that is used to socialize the cost of war onto the same rubes who love the idea of collective power.

You create the power that these entities use to gain from war. How many wars would there be if Exxon-Mobile had to pay for them and send their employees children to die in them?

Answer: Zero.

There is no profit margin.

It is only the public sector and their seminal monopoly on violence that allows for this. It's the monopoly on violence that you juice up over that has always, is always, and will always be used against you.

War is a racket, and again, like all cons it depends on the greed of the mark. You. You want the power which you will never have, and shouldn't want anyway if you were a good person.

But that lust for power forces you to first allow power to exist at all.

Your state.

But the power will never be yours. They hint it might so you call for it to be greater. But it never will be yours.

The government is the gun.

Old capital and corporations do indeed have their finger on the trigger.

Your solution: Call for a bigger gun.

Very clever.

It would be funny if it were not so tragic and deadly dangerous.

The sad part is they need you to be programmed the way you are. They want you to clamor for a bigger gun. The gun they control.

You are the footsoldier of Halliburton and Exxon and the Fed.

You're like Jack in Oblivion, happily waging war against your own kind thinking you are saving it.

You are on the side of evil LibertyBaby. Time to wake up and read some Rothbard.

Cyril's picture

You seem very gullible about something getting old

You cite the CFR and even name a few of its cronies, yet you fail to recognize they are precisely empowered in their monopolies by big state and non-free markets.

You fail to distinguish between fair profits out of better productivity, better innovation, better products, and fairly acquired customer base on one side and legal plunder on the other side.

You still think in terms of the false antagonisms that Marx or Babeuf invented centuries ago to justify big state.

Just laws ought to punish severely those who don't play the game of fair competition, who steal, who harm, who deceive. Big state enables unjust laws which aren't justice any longer but the bed for agendas of politicians AND corporate crooks. Again, that's exactly what you got. Blaming it on natural capitalism, denied long ago here and most of everywhere else is dishonest or grossly ignorant at best.

I'm as sad, bitter, and angry as you are about what we observe. But I pay attention to words and what they denote.

Stop buying into approximations or deceptive confusions that have been carefully engineered.

Do you even know Gosbank? Look it up. Then compare to the Federal Reserve System.

Yes, "Gosbank". Look at its design and features. And you call that capitalism? Get a clue. For good.

Re-read Bastiat on credit in That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen; re-read To The Youth.

That'd be my advice.

To exit the fallacy loop.

What is capital and how does it function? That's not what Marx said, this was a lie for the envious to appeal to big state. That's exactly what you got.

Capital is the savings you made out of previous successes. It allows for investment, innovation, charity, and retirement.

The lie you still seem to buy into is getting old, you know.

Really, really old.

It's up to you to know better.

Good luck.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Makes you wonder about people

Makes you wonder about people like LibertyBaby.

Working for evil?

Or just a dupe of evil?

I like to think people can be turned to good but sometimes I wonder.

Cyril's picture

Gross ignorance or tiring useful idiocy

It's nothing but gross ignorance, or tiring idiocy, or any mix thereof, as I see it.

It's ok to be ignorant at any point in time, we have all been.

It's inexcusable to choose to remain so out of selfishness, and bitter envy or covetousness, and intellectual dishonesty.

Breed more envious, state dependents, and crave for entitlements against self reliance, responsible risk taking and free entreprise: the evergreen strategy of the statists to sustain their legal plunder.

And yes, as you point it out: large scale programming and dumbing down, as the cherry on top.

I'll just leave this commentator to his/her fate.

LibertyBaby can keep firing and bitching at the so-called evil of capitalism, that's exactly what his/her masters expect. Good boy, good girl, nice swallowing it all and begging for more. Creepy how some people can't even realize or bother to ponder about who is actually raping them, far and wide, isn't it?

I wish them good luck in their begging for big state against natural economics. I'll keep hiding my wealth and showing my guns.

"Bear with them."

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Tax base

More to your point, wars are meant to increase the tax base in a given area.

This would stipulate that war is ALSO fought for profit, which we have seen with numerous military contractors. Albiet paid for with fiat currency.

Sure and agreed.

States certainly do want to usurp existing tax infrastructures, and wars used to be fought primarily for this reason. But in the modern state they are more often fought for rent.

When is the last time some state actually annexed the tax infrastructure of another? It's been a while, and usually it costs the invader more than the invader gains. The USSR never much 'profited' from all the states it annexed after WW2.

I use the term rent with purpose. Rent is what states granted to special interests. Lords were granted land and they exacted rent from the people who live there. Kings grant concessions, ie monopolies, to firms, who in turn exact monopoly pricing from their prey.

Calling this 'profit' is like pointing at rape and calling it love making.

Profit in a free market attracts competition and is exactly what prevents monopoly from happening. When labor is being exploited there is a reason. Employers are granted privilege, usually in the form of regulation and taxes (nominally) on themselves, to exclude competition. This reduces market entry for other employers which would clear the labor market in a natural way.

When you look at a breakdown of significantly varying profits in various market sectors you are looking at an x-ray of an economy showing fascism.

It's just like an x-ray of a human body showing cancer.

Those aren't profits. Those are rent.

If profits are a result of capitalism, and capitalism depends on profits, which I think is a correct definition, then you cannot be looking at profits because you aren't looking at capitalism.

You are looking at fascism, and you are looking at state protected rent from that fascism. How can the health care sector maintain 15%+ profits over time in a free market? The answer is: it cannot. It's impossible to maintain that level of profit in a free market. That isn't profit. That is rent.

In free market capitalism, capital being fungible, capital would flow from low profit to high profit, ultimately roughly equalizing profit. Historically this has been about 5% or so. High profits attract competition which drives down profits and equalizes them.

This is why cartels fail without state support.

This is one reason why capital tends accrues to capitalists more as the size and scope of government grows. It's pretty obvious that the income diversity that so upsets progressives is caused by the very institution they want to expand. Government.

Cyril's picture

^^^ BUMP. Hear, hear.

^^^ BUMP. Hear, hear.

Excellently put.

Thank you.

For the curious, see also:

http://www.dailypaul.com/280094/to-the-youth#Antagonisms

and:

http://www.dailypaul.com/274028

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Capitalism or Crony Capitalism?

The historical capitalism that you refer to could not exist without the aid and support of a government rife with self-serving officials who cater to large money interests in exchange for political support. There has been a plethora of articles published about this common occurrence.

Here are three of them:

Read this item titled, "Crony Capitalism: By-Product of Big Government" (see http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=927 ).

At the Mises Institute titled, "The Anti-Capitalist mentality" (see: http://mises.org/etexts/mises/anticap.asp ).

And finally from Dr. Paul's own words in this article titled, "Has Capitalism Failed?" where he mentions in paragraph ten that true capitalism is founded on sound money and voluntary contracts (see: http://mises.org/daily/2895 ).

Good post, thanks.

Not sure how popular your comment will be, but I thought it was very well-written and thought out and sincere. Popularity isn't all it's cracked up to be. I like food for thought.

I'm thinking in a slightly different direction, namely about what a post-money world might look like. It's not about versions of the economy to me anymore, but more about having a money-based economy at all. There's got to be something beyond money here, and there's got to be a consciousness that involves ignoring greed to create a greater common good. The idea of GDP = happiness is just not working, and feels like it was implanted in our brains by "masters" who were building the foundations of their human farm. Have the same people not been the wealthy and elite for generations?

Our founders even listed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as inalienable rights...where has the "pursuit of happiness" gone? It has turned into "pursuit of money". Money has become the tool by which we think we can get to happiness. It has become a substitute...and in fact, isn't that ALL money is? Just a substitute for value.

When I close my eyes I envision a world where everyone has their basic needs met (food, clothes, protection from the elements), perhaps through both self-sustaining community farms and well organized barter systems, and has the free time and liberty to pursue whatever makes them happy. No money. No taxes. Cooperation. Need a road? Let's build it! Need food? Let's grow it. No masters, no slaves. No reason to fight. The reason to fight comes from greed. It is greed we need to eliminate from our human experience, and the idea that any one is above another. Responsible self-governance.

Medium of Exchange

What money simply is is a medium of exchange.

It transfers value, of a given quantity, to another individual for exchange of a service or good. It cannot be stressed enough that not all goods can be produced by one individual, hence the need for mediums of exchange to transfer value of a product or good.

As for your proposition on self-governance what would you do to those not willing to support your efforts to build that road? Or grow the food? How is it beneficial to them if they see no value in products they can do without, or, already have access to such things?

The only self 'governance' is

The only self 'governance' is no governance.

It was never pursuit of happiness. It was right to "life liberty, and property". they changed property to "Pursuit of happiness" as a sop to slave owners who realized if we all had the right to property slavery doesn't work.

Even so, if some people are happy from money what business is of yours?

A world without money, real money, not fiat, is a dog eat man world. You cannot perform cost accounting and thus you have to work like a dog to even survive.

It's pretty simple. Anyone can go off the grid right now and live at whatever level the technology allows.

Nothing is stopping you. And that is the world pastoralists would force on everyone.

But that level may not be what you're willing to handle. If you want the fruits of division of labor, you need a money. You can't have the productivity of specialization without some way to exchange what you specialize in with all the other specialists who make everything else you need and want.

So the truth is pastoralist utopians want their cake and to eat it too.

They could go have that world right now. But they don't want to. They don't just want that pastoral life, they want anyone who wants to do different not to exist.

They can't be happy off the grid with the gnawing knowledge that other people out there have a different life.

This is just the most base envy.

Thanks for the reply.

I don't have time to address every assumption you made about me in your post, but I certainly didn't mean to sound judgmental in any way, or to come off as a "pastorialist" (that's a new one, thanks for the education).

It is no concern to me if someone is happy from money. It only becomes a concern to me when that happiness turns to greed and lust for more, and I am then enslaved to a system in order to feed that greed and lust. At that point, their happiness has encroached upon my liberty.

I didn't mean to come off as rude.

Apologies if I did.

In a free market my desire for money (which I sadly lack in any useful quantity) need not harm you.

In fact my desire for money would compel me to provide better and cheaper products which you may want in pursuit of your pastoral or otherwise lifestyle.

It's government protection of business which protects this.

In a real free market, people unconcerned with money would be far far better off than in a socialist society. They could live essentially on the positive externalities of producers.

Producers produce, driving the cost of goods down. Artists and aesthetes can then labor very little in order to procure their basic needs.

What has happened is that producers have convinced the .. less productive.. that the state is the instrument to gain some of the wealth of the producers.

Any con always starts with the greed of the mark. If the mark has no larceny in his heart. The con cannot succeed.

But the 'non-materialist' has nothing to offer the state. Once the non-materialist or pastoralist falls for this trick, the state has power.

The power is used, has been used, always will be used, to take from the poor and give to the rich. This is the nature of states,

The state is just another monopoly firm, and the pastoralist has nothing to offer the state.

The state has one customer. Capital. Even Marx sort of understood this.

Poverty and Progress

The answer to the problem isn't a rejection of capitalism. It is a correction of the systems we have that allow parasitic income to be earned. Parasitic income is earned not through ones own investment or labor, but through the improper arrangement of markets and through government favour.

Henry George wrote about this way back in the 1880's, in a book titled Poverty and Progress. You can find it online in a number of places. Worth reading. With a couple of extensions it becomes a very sound basis for a Libertarian society.

"It is not from the

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

You misunderstand profit and capitalism. In voluntary transactions both parties profit, or they wouldn't make the trade. If I trade $10 for a steak dinner, it's because I valued the steak dinner more than I valued the $10 I had, and the restaurant valued the $10 more then the steak they cooked for me. Therefor we both profited. If there's competition, then I have to decide what restaurant I am going to go to eat a steak, and the restaurants that want my business have to provide a better product or service in order to entice me into eating at their restaurant rather than the competitions.
We have a mixed and manipulated system, we do not have capitalism and I do not believe it is the capitalism part of the economy that is the problem. There is no economic system that is without some problems and that everyone would be happy with, this is not heaven, but free market capitalism has been shown to be the best and most moral system known to man.

Hmmm....


There are no butchers or bakers or brewers left.....there is only Walmart.

This is a country now left with nothing but cheap strip malls everywhere, and that is what is left of our whole culture. Worthless Consumerism, and cheap labor, and low paying work and long hours.

Serfdom with "smart-phone" distractions to make us forget the futility of our lives.

I call it a failure.

reply

"There are no butchers or bakers or brewers left.....there is only Walmart."

Exaggerate much?

There's a brewery like five miles from my house, not to mention the dozens of microbreweries just in my state alone.

I don't know what part of the country you're in, but there are TONS of bakeries in New England, especially the Boston area. Those Italians sure do love their canolis...

Also, I do hope you realize the differences between consumerism and capitalism.

A signature used to be here!

Respectful disagreement

You make several assumptions about Capitalism that are right from the start false. I'll try to directly handle each as I see them on separate posts, as I believe most people in this forum would do as well.

Railroads, see here: http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods175.html
http://www.mises.org/daily/2317

The only railroad built without the use of government subsidies is the Great Northern, as you can see now the Union Pacific is rife with corruption and lunacy. If it was not for government subsidization this would have never happened.

You prefer socialism?

Or to continue the fascism that was institutionalized in 1913.

Congress in order to satisfy creditors and avoid bankruptcy in 1913 abandoned capitalism for fascism.

Congress has sold us to our creditors and they borrow more each day.

Lincoln stuck the first blow to capitalism by helping Congress create the National Banking System.

Then he proceeded to spend us into our first bankruptcy, leaving a future Congress to surrender to international fascism.

Capitalism promotes competition.

Fascism destroys competition, so we get one walmart. Three automakers, three TV networks, One AMA that sets medical standards, one Federal Reserve.

We have to look to the writers of the 1820s through 1850s to understand that capitalism only requires ambition and a good reputation.

Congress never fails to screw up, then pass the blame.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw6uF2LdZw&playnext=1&list=P...

Free includes debt-free!

I agree


I agree that Walmart is an illustration of Fascism (or at least Monopoly). But the point I am making here is that Walmart and fascism (or Monopoly) is an inevitable consequence of a money-oriented system in the first place.

For when the only motive for your existence is to make more and more and more money, then the motivation for Monopoly and Fascism is inescapable.

The logical endpoint of a profit system is to continually increase your market share, or to drive out the competition, or have hostile takeovers, or to move jobs overseas in order to squeeze out more money (by exploiting cheap labor).

So where does this all end?
Right at the doorstep of Fascism.


So the problem is materialism: a money-oriented system

So the socialist solves the problem by putting a gun to my head to take my money, my stuff.

Socialists are saving me from myself?

Free includes debt-free!

Exactly. Walmart is not a

Exactly. Walmart is not a result of capitalism. Walmart supported Obamacare. That should be a huge frikkin clue;)

Calling what we have capitalism, rather than what it is, fascism/mercantilism/progressivism/corporatism, is a deceitful way to deny the solution which is real capitalism, which does mean real anarchism or close to it.

If we're a capitalist society, clearly capitalism has failed amirite?

Except there is no capitalism left outside the black market. That's why it's 'black', because it's free, though still extremely distorted by supply reduction due to illegality.

The point of the graphic was to point out we live in a fascist economy. It's natural that this attracts socialist utopians who don't like the truth getting out.