the_gimlet_eye

Every civilization must deal with the problems and challenges of economics and money.  One may explore the practices of any civilization for evidence of this.  Thousands of fascinating examples await our examination from lands far and near, and in each there are critical lessons to be learned if we but pay close attention.  Applications to our own civilization and its economic health are by no means out of the question, however long ago or far away a given civilization flourished.  "Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto."  Economics and money are by no means the dry, dismal subjects which some academics make them out to be, either.  In fact, the more I think of it, the more I suspect that those same academics deliberately continue to quote Thomas Carlyle about  "the dismal science" in order to make people shy away from persevering in finding out how it all really works.

You have all seen the Mel Gibson movie, "Apocalypto," of course.  At 9/11 Essentials, it summarized this film thus:

As the Mayan kingdom faces its decline, the rulers insist the key to prosperity is to build more temples "bailouts" and offer human sacrifices "wars".

That's not a bad way of describing this film.  In fact, I really think that the archaeologists and anthropologists have missed the boat on this one.  I have some very good books on the Maya and other ancient Meso-American civilizations, written by very competent, experienced scholars, and only one of them says anything about the money they used, let alone the economic consequences of building so many temples, or other grossly wasteful state enterprises.  None of them say anything about their economies at large or how they really worked, or how successful or fragile they might have been.  I contend that the archaeologists have spent so much time studying the "high art," ruins, sculptures, glyphs, figurines, etc., and have been so spellbound with the strange, otherworldly beauty of this culture and its religion and mythology that they have almost completely overlooked the critical importance of the economic systems of these people.  One often reads of the "Maya Collapse," referring to the mysterious disappearance of the civilization of these people, i.e., their monumental architecture, their ceremonial centers, their sophisticated art forms, their beautiful and sophisticated writing and mathematical systems, and so on. What one does not read much about is the dynamic role of economics in this "collapse." 

We don't really know exactly and precisely what caused these Mayan city states to disappear so utterly.  Not enough information is available for definitive explanations of this, as would be the case, say with the much more recent French Revolution and the ensuing demise of the court of Louis XVI.  In the latter, information is plentiful and the picture is pretty clear for all to see.  A number of theories of the Maya collapse have been advanced, such as war, civil or otherwise, conquest, revolution, insurrection, drought, famine, malnutrition.  My best guess is that the primary cause was economic collapse.  Of course, any number of disastrous political, religious, social, agricultural, military, and environmental setbacks are also probable contributing factors in their demise.  But the extreme levels of destruction, the total wiping out of all higher forms of civilization and their physical expressions lead me to believe that, above all, when all is said and done, total economic collapse was, if not the cause, then the result of the Maya experience. 

 to wit:

• An unstable, irredeemable currency, similar in effect to that of Revolutionary France 
• Out of control debt
• Constant warfare
• The ruinous expense of an overextended empire
• Reckless spending by "god kings" literally drunk with power and driven by the need for more and more consumption of the state's valuable resources to feed their vanity, fund their conquests, and gratify their lust for power
• The combination of some cyclic environmental difficulties ( i.e., droughts, floods, maiz mosaic virus?)

• "Pleasing" the "gods." 
• The pretense of "righteousness" of the rulers.
• The justification for their fitness to rule.
• The justification for the current social and economic systems.
• Keeping the economy going (even if unproductive, artificial, and in self-destruct mode), no matter what.
• Keeping the people "unconcious" with respect to what was really happening to them, i.e., in a hypnotic state.
• Psychologically potent and profoundly symbolic ceremonies and art forms.
• Human sacrifice to "appease" the "gods,"; i.e., the use of scapegoats, "enemies of the people," to frighten, intimidate, and distract the populace from understanding the underlying dynamics of their society, what the the REAL, underlying problems afflicting their society were, and from forming opposition to the rulers by challenging or revolting against them.  This would have been roughly analogous to those condemned to the guillotine during the French Revolution.
• Constant, continuous war against enemies, real or imagined, and rivals to their power.
• The general need to maintain control over the minds of the people, and thus, their obedience.  
  
  Obviously then, for these rulers to maintain their grip on power, their resort to the manipulation of human psychology played a central role.  In fact, pychological manipulation was virtually the key to Maya civilzation.  The "god kings" must have had some very clever students of the human mind working for them, because reality for the people was thoroughly shaped and conditioned by these master manipulators.  Modern psychologists have nothing on these guys!  They must have made some key discoveries about the human mind to have so utterly captured the imagination and obedience of the people, while at the same time leading them to such uttter disaster.
  
  Apparently, Maya city states were organized around "ceremonial centers" where the prescribed activities were carried out.  The people supposedly lived around these centers, but not in the them.  Their lives revolved around the "religious" activities in the ceremonial centers.   

"Reforms" DO NOT stop destructive business cycles, or stop criminal business activity, or stop corrupt government officials from robbing us six ways to Sunday.

Also, increased regulation does not equal the banishment of "irrational exuberance."

Extraordinary popular delusions are ever present, as are crooks and incompetents, both inside and outside of government, who are always ready to take advantage of it, or allow it to go on, outrageously, without doing a thing to stop it. 

As Benjamin Graham put it:

"No doubt there will be new regulations and new prohibitions.  The specific abuses of the late 1960's will be fairly adequately banned from Wall Street.  But it is probably too much to expect that the urge to spectulate will ever disappear, or that the exploitation of that urge can ever be abolished.  It is part of the armament of the intelligent investor to know about these "Extraordinary Popular Delusions," and to keep as far away from them as possible." (from The Intelligent Investor, p. 237.)

And:

"For many decades the New york Stock Exchange has been moving in the direction of closer and stricter controls over the operations and financial condiition of its members--incliuding minimum capital requirements, surprise audits, and the like.  Besides this, we have had 37 years of control over the exchanges and their members by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Finally, the stock-brokerage industry itself has operated under favorable conditions--namely, a huge increase in volume, fixed minimum commisssion rates (largely eliminating competitive fees), and a limited number of member firms." (p. 266).

The results?

Ivan Boesky, Enron, the Bernard Madoff ponzi scheme, just to name a few.  Madoff was nearly 10 years into his crime spree before he was finally taken down.  Thousands of people were ruined.  Some lost their entire life's savings.  Some lost everything.  What did the SEC do during all that time?  Nothing.  Nothing but the routine prosecuting of low-level, small time cheaters.  The Big Fish it let go.  It was told repeatedly by Harry Markapolos what was going on and was given all the information that it needed to go after Madoff.  Still nothing.

Why?  Because this country is run by gangsters.  We need to study why this is, how government gets taken over, bought off, and controlled by powerful special interests, who then make government commit to policies, regulations, and tax policies favorable to them, but destructive to the people.

Look at the power of the "central banking system" (namely, the FED) to deflect investigations away from their crimes.

Ron Paul's bill for a full audit of the Federal Reserve has been rejected by the House in favor of the soft ball version (Dodd-Frank Empowerment Act).  The FED continues to exercise a hypnotic affect on Congress. Even some co-sponsors of HR1207 voted against it.  It is going to take something extraordinary to change this situation.  It really amounts to a deadlock.  Congress has granted the FED unconstitutional powers and will not reign it in.  Why?  Because they like things the way they are, business is good, crime pays, there is too much money to be made by the use of "fiat money," the lifeblood of central banking, and because the POWER ELITE also like it this way and intend to hold on to the fiction of "central banking" at all costs.  Ultimately, what they say goes.  Interlocking relationships among the rich and powerful, both inside and outside the halls of government, keep the system locked up tight as a drum and nearly impervious to change.  These relationships represent a level of organized crime which makes the typical Mafias, even in their most powerful and virulent form, look like pikers.  The FED, along with the other central banks abroad, e.g., the Bank of England, seem to be the linchpins at the center of the criminal mass, because they control and manage the money of the world.  More and more people want the FED abolished, but Congress will not do this without a tremendous uprising from the people.  Get on YouTube and look at what happened to Argentina if you want to see what can happen to a country which allows "central banking" to ruin a country. 

This strange act of Congress in handing over so much power to the FED, a PRIVATE banking cartel, is one of the great mysteries of American history.  The investigation of this weird policy is ongoing and critical.  One must ask oneself why?  It would pay not only students of economic history, but everyone, to go back and take a good look at the history of central banking in the U.S.  From what I have read on this subject, it has been a fierce battle all the way through, and it is not over yet by any means.  From the power struggle between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson/James Madison over the Bank of the United States, on through the huge battle between Nicholas Biddle and president Andrew Jackson over the same, an (unsuccesful) assassination attempt upon the person of Andrew Jackson, to Lincoln's struggle with financing the Civil War, to the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Reserve Board (1913), to the termination of the Gold Standard, the history of central banking in the U.S. has been marked by huge political clashes, accusations of: corruption, predictions of the downfall of our civilization, perpetual debt slavery, assassination (Andrew Jackson?, Abraham Lincoln?  Garfield?  McKinley?  JFK?), as well as ominous and dreadful predictions for the future. 

Clearly, the FED is nothing more than an ingenious criminal enterprise, but one must not disparage this ingenuity.  On the contrary, one must marvel, if only for a moment, at its wondrous design, its ability to control our entire society, and its amazing, self-perpetuating, publicly mesmerizing grip on power.  It is arguably the greatest criminal enterprise ever created in the history of the world.  It seems just as clear that it is going to take something extraordinary to take the FED out.  What that would be is anybody's guess.  Revolution comes to mind.  A bunkerbuster might do the trick. 

Sadly, there are few heroes in either political party with the courage to stand up to the FED and the whole concept of "central banking," along with Congressman Paul.  Both political parties are thoroughly corrupt and bought off, except for a scattered few lone wolves like Congressman Paul.

Social Security is a fraud, a gigantic fraud!  We have all been cheated, fleeced, and lied to!  We have every right to be angry with this and previous administrations.

What lessons can we draw from this tragic tale?

That Social Security is a "ponzi scheme."

That Social Security may be adequately "funded" now, but will soon run out of money. 

That personal responsibility is paramount.

That a knowledge of at least the basics of economics is indispensable.

That no government is above lying to its constituents in order to get what it wants.

That no government is above cheating the people out of their property, their sacred honor, or their cultural heritage.

That rascals and thieves abound in the world, and naturally, habitually, and instinctively gravitate to government because it is there that they can maximize their criminality under the guise of "law and order."

That it is not the role of government to "take care" of people with "womb to tomb" services.

That the "welfare state" is a complete abomination.

That people must be encouraged whenever possible and in every way possible to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO ON THIS EARTH.

That the government has no money and does not create wealth; rather, government steals/confiscates it from the producers and gives it away in the form of bribery to others who do not work for it.

That no good deed goes unpunished.

That government becomes infected with criminality with frightening speed if the citizenry does not keep a sharp eye on the proceedings and take action when needed.

That bureaucrats will utilize any and all powers of the state to give their criminality the patina of legality and morality, as well as to destroy their enemies and enrich themselves.

In fact, that government seeks to become "God"; all their pronouncements, all their proclamations, all their legislation, has the attitude of the deity, that you derive your rights from them, that they "deign" to give you whatever rights and priviledges that you may have, that they are the source of LIFE ITSELF.

This current crop of "gods" (or "judges") reminds one of those corrupt, psychotic, disgusting, fat, worse-than-useless, royal buffoons and their preposterous, bloody officials and slavers, in the movie Apocalypto.  Set in the time and place of the ancient Maya, the whole movie is, nevertheless, really a metaphor of a totally corrupt, bloody, destructive, terminal, murderous state and how a "hero" defies it, protects his family from it, defeats it, and has a new beginning for himself and his family.

I hope to God that we don't have to do the things that this "hero" did just to survive the current economic disaster, the likes of which are reflected in Social Security, to name just one program among many.

I would recommend the movie Apocalypto to all as a lesson on what can happen to a failed state and its people.   

Lincoln and the Civil War are certainly more than fair game for Austrian economists to consider.  So many critically important economic things were taking place in that great conflict that economists can hardly ignore it and expect to understand American economic history.  The debate over the true nature and cause of the war itself, whether for the liberation of the slaves, or for economic reasons, or a combination of both, has been going on now for a long time, perhaps a hundred years.  Libertarians have been very hard on Lincoln and have accused him of being a tyrant.  His refusal to let the Southern states go, his "threatening" pronouncement, his mobilization of the army, as well as his economic policy have earned him a failing grade in their eyes.  But we must remember some critical issues.  There is still a lot of heated debate about the immediate cause of the war, as well as the long-range causes.  What was Lincoln's role in it?  What was the role of the seceding Southerners?

We should also not fail to mention what some historians call "the real" start of the Civil War back in the 1850's, "Bloody Kansas" and all that in the territories.  Lincoln had nothing whatever to do with those violent confrontations, though he did comment on them.

But even before Lincoln took office, Southerners had not only threatened to secede, but were already engaging in acts of both espionage and sabotage against the national goverment.  They did not even give Lincoln a chance to negotiate with them.  This is well summarized by an army officer in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, a collection of primary source material on the Civil War (In the Table of Contents, click on the option, "Washington on the Eve of the War").  This entry, written by Charles P. Stone, Brigadier-General, U. S. V., chronicles the fact that Southerners were already tearing up railroad tracks and blocking roads before Lincoln's inauguration, as well as plotting his assassination.  (See The Baltimore Plot).  In addition, Stone also described the alarming lack of preparedness for potential civil strife and sabotage then current in our nation's capital.  It was thus that Lincoln had to act very quickly upon taking office in order to deal with the threatening storm of secession, saboteurs, spies, and the general unpreparedness of the nation's capital for trouble.

Lincoln had offered various solutions to the slavery problem prior to taking office.  Once was to repatriate them back to Africa, a move which failed only due to logistics.  Lincoln had agreed, in theory, with the American Colonization Society, a pet project of Henry Clay and his supporters, on the desirability of returning Negro slaves to Africa.  Subsequent proposals to move the slaves to Central America also foundered.  I believe that Lincoln also offered to compensate the slave owners if they would free them, but that scheme, too, foundered.

Near as I can tell, beyond a certain point, Lincoln felt war inevitable and resigned himself, reluctantly, to it, and planned to move forward before the enemy could get too strong.  No doubt, Lincoln believed that the Union must be kept together at all costs.

The trouble was that the cost turned out to be much heavier and more painful than anyone could have predicted.  According to E.B. Long in his book THE CIVIL WAR DAY BY DAY, "Total deaths in the Civil War for both sides may be placed at least at 623,026, with a minimum of 471,427 wounded, for a total casualty figure of 1,094,453." (Page 711).  The numbers of the dead speak for themselves.   

It was very unfortunate for Lincoln that his entire presidency should be taken up by war and that he should be assassinated before completing his work.  I consider his assassination to have been one of the greatest tragedies ever to befall this country, other than the Civil War itself.  Had he lived, perhaps "Reconstruction" would not have been the dismal failure that we all know it was.

If there is any extreme point of weakness or equivocation with Lincoln, it would have to do with his earlier blanket advocacy for "revolutionizing" back when he was in Congress on January 12, 1848, a concept which would return to haunt him later during his own presidency, here reproduced:

"The extent of our teritory in that region depended, not on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it) but on revolution. Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, mayrevolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution." 

What had changed?  Lincoln had been very specific and tautological in his speech in Congress on Texas and its rebellion against Mexico.  My explanation would be that after he assumed the presidency, the situation was too close to home, giving him a whole new perspective on "secession" and "revolutionizing" and forcing him to reconsider his position.  No doubt, lincoln thought that the country would be virtually destroyed in the process.

However, there is an important economic issue to be considered, and Lincoln did not avoid this issue: the question of national debt owed by the seceding states in question.  Lincoln would not have those states go without paying their debts.  This all has to do with "tariffs."  More on that question as time permits. 

Also, Lincoln did not take his personal security seriously enough, getting himself assassinated in an incident which, with even minimal security measures could have been easily foiled.  He seemed not quite to grasp the absolutely critical importance of his continuance in office, or, that deprived of his leadership, the ship of state would list.

How can illegal aliens "depress the overall wage scale," without at the same time displacing American workers?

Some folks say that "many find field work demeaning and too physically demanding. These jobs would go begging were it not for immigrant workers."

Isn't that too bad!  SOMEBODY has to do the work, and by that I do not mean imported, subsidized, slave/serf, illegal aliens, either!  You are wrong that "These jobs would go begging."  There's plenty of material to work with right here on this side of the border: legal aliens, the unemployed, hoboes, welfare cases, and idle, muscle-bound youth.  We are talking about a HUGE crowd of folks, many MILLIONS all over the country, so many of whom are not working and not earning their keep.  THEY can do the "challenging" jobs.  As long as they are able-bodied, if they don't work, they don't eat.  Charity for the rest.

Why don't they do them?  Because the monster "welfare state" has made it possible and profitable for them not to.  Is that how our country is supposed to work?  Hell, if that's the case, we might as well have kept on with the slaves!  At least our selfish intentions to exploit their labor would be clear, just as they were during the days of slavery!  Or do the ruling classes still consider themselves so "superior" to other human beings that we must devise an EVEN MORE DEVIOUS SLAVE LABOR SYSTEM THAN WE HAD ANTEBELLUM???   

As things stand now, we are bombarded with all sorts of propaganda about how illegal immigration and its cheap labor is "good" for us, that our country would "collapse" without it, that prices would "skyrocket," that it would be a "catastrophe," that it would be "inhumane" to deport them, that they "only want to work," that they are "only seeking a better life," that we "can't blame them" for wanting to get out of the hell-hole of Mexico, that we "can't break up families," that we "can't do without them," that we "owe" them and their employers subsidies because they do hard work that nobody else wants to do......

Some folks seem to think that kicking the illegal alien habit is either impossible or undesireable!  No more so than for a junky trying to kick the habit and get off dope!  Or should the junky just keep on snorting and shooting up till the bitter end when he dies, just like this sick, rotting little political entity called the United States?

Is it "meanspirited" to want to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution?  Is it selfish to want to preserve borders, language, and culture?  Is it miserly to want to defend the integrity of one's homeland?  Is it wrong to want to maintain good order in immigration matters?  Is it xenophobic to be patriotric?  Should we be happy that our city, county, state, and country are bankrupt because of subsidies to illegal aliens?  Would it kill illegal aliens to stay home and try to build a great nation?  It might, but no more so, and no more tragically that the young men who died in our own American Revolution!  Was the answer to our problems with British tyranny to run away like cowards and cross the borders of another country, there to cause our new hosts and ourselves still more problems?

Some folks accuse patriots of a "double standard" when it comes to illegal immigration.  I didn't know that human nature came with a "political label" on it.  From where I stand, the two party system long ago became a convenient political fiction, a facade for the gullible, a vehicle for the acquisition of total political power, and the establishment of criminal economies of scale of a magnitude undreamed of by the greatest kings, conquerers, freebooters, and mafias of former times.

The latter group of billionaire kingpins, dizzy with power, is really the sinister force behind the whole illegal immigration affair, and much, much, else, citizens. 

And here sit we, waiting to die the political death of all people condemned to serfdom.
 

I have been a supporter of E-verify.  It would appear to be a necessity, given the chaotic situation with illegal immigration.  Yet even our own government officials resist its full application, fiercely even.  Or, at least, they APPEAR to.  Perhaps this is a feint, or "trial balloon," while they actually have plans to reverse themselves at some point as yet undetermined in the future.    

On the surface, E-verify would appear to be a very good way to help keep illegal immigration under control.

Yet, I wonder.  What if E-verify were part of a much larger, more comprehensive plan not actually directed at illegal aliens at all, but against the rest of us?  Something about all this "electronic registration" for everything bothers me.  The same with a "national ID card."  Should a dark day come when we fall under the thumb of a dictator (as many believe Clinton, the Bushes, Obama, and numerous other presidents to have been), that big high-tech registration system could be used with deadly effectiveness and consequences against the people.  This all could lead to the forced implantation of RFID Chips in every human being on this planet.

The people are in a difficult position.  Here we have illegal aliens pouring in and we do, and should, want something done to stop it, there is no doubt.  At the same time, technology is making quantum leaps, and privacy is practically a thing of the past.  Much of this technology is hidden from public view, so that we are not aware of just how dangerous it could be if it fell into the wrong hands.

The possibilities for abuse are frightening.  And the power elite is in the perfect position to put their perverted theories into practice by taking us right to the edge of the cliff.

I think that the power elite has put us in a game of chicken.  They hold all the cards in this game.  When we get to the edge of the cliff, they, being super rich and super powerful, will be able to avoid going over, suffering, starving, etc.  The people will not.  In exchange for "saving" us, they will put the yoke of Big Brother around our necks.  And that's it.  Checkmate.

That's the price that we will have to pay for our "salvation" from the power elite when the moment of truth comes.

Unless we fight back before it is too late.

We are, therefore, in a race against time.  Thus, Obama's rush to "get things done" in such a hurry.  He has to before too many people wake up and get wise and stop believing in authoritarianism and its convenient fictions, stop listening to public officials, and change their minds about the whole array of programmed illusions and theatre which they have created for us.

Come on, guys, wake up!  We are in the grip of gangsters who mean us NO GOOD!  Stop daydreaming and fretting over bread and circus and join the fight!