Comrade Karl is NOT Going to be Happy with this Post >:-)

Lessons In Economics


All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.


– John Adams


Our founders believed that educating the common citizen about the principles of sound money was essential to the maintenance of a free and self-governing society.  Is it any wonder this is one of the most neglected subjects in all of public education?


I will readily admit that economics is not one of my strongest points – which is why I have started paying attention to what those who have a proven track record have to say about our current economic situation.  I have also started to read Sowell, Williams, Hayek, Freidman and Hazlet.  I favor the Austrian economic model simply because real world events have demonstrated it is closer to reality than the Keynesian model favored by the political Left.  A case in point: the Keynesian model says, in times of economic trouble, government can “fix” the economy by spending in place of the free market.  Typically, this requires deficit spending or printing of money.  On the other hand, the Austrian model looks to history and says the Keynesian model has never worked in the long term.  Nowhere is this point any more clear than where the printing of money is concerned.  Every time this has been done, hyperinflation has followed.


First, you need to understand what hyperinflation is and how it affects a nation.  The most typical example people use is that o the Weimar Republic (post WW I Germany):


WEIMAR: Here’s What We Know About The Hyperinflation Horror Story That Haunts Europe Today

Read the rest here…

10 thoughts on “Comrade Karl is NOT Going to be Happy with this Post >:-)

  1. I am not for or against deficit spending. Nothing except collectivization can solve the inherent contradictions of capitalism/free-markets.

    What is the Austrian solution for the economy? Cut taxes lower regulation and lower government debt and spending.
    Doing all of those won’t increase demand. The reason there is such little demand is because our productivity is so high over production is common. If we scale back production, laborers will decrease even more. This lowers demand.

    The right-wing will usually yell back “GROWTH”
    But what can the economy grow into? There are more homes than homeless, more cellphones than people, everyone owns a microwave, fridge, tv, computer.

    The brain power of man can’t continue being used for growth. It has to start being used in the problem solving capacity.

    It is disgraceful that people are being to put work on problems such as “there are not enough iphones in people’s hands” instead of on meaningful issues like pollution, energy and transportation. The car companies aren’t here to provide us with the best transportation, GM isn’t going to announce a plan to build high speed rail. Capitalist production is here to make money not solve problems.
    Further yet. If the need for labor declines due to labor saving machines and techniques. Why should we obligate wages go down due to people being unemployed, despite the fact that production has stayed the same or increased, with less labor. As the proletariat become more productive they lose work and wages?

    The private ownership of the means of production has internal contradictions, these contradictions become more self-evident as the cycles of economic development continue.

    • I wonder whether or not Karl has ever realized that, should his wildest dream be realized and the entire world collectivized, it would be the ultimate in internal contradiction and the ultimate expression of private property.

      In order for the 7 billion INDIVIDUALS in this world to become a collective, the will of most all of them must be subordinated to a central authority. This would mean — by definition — that the collective system will be in contradiction to everyone who had to be forced or coerced.

      Then, though they may claim otherwise, if the labor of the entire world is collectivized, then the entire world will have essentially become the private property of the central authority — WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF MARXISM!

      Marx was a lazy power monger who was just looking for a way to justify tyranny — period! Which is why he made no allowance for the REAL individual and focused on the FICTION of the collective. It is ALWAYS about control, and control ALWAYS requires deceit.

      • “In order for the 7 billion INDIVIDUALS in this world to become a collective, the will of most all of them must be subordinated to a central authority.”

        Ha. Collectivization is about giving the power of the means of production to the people. If you want to participate in the decisions being made on a Montana farming commune, you have to go to Montana and work at the commune.

        “the entire world will have essentially become the private property of the central authority — WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF MARXISM!”

        Ha, what central authority? The steelworkers who operate the steel works? The cattle ranchers who raise cattle? there is no central authority. The people operate the means of production.

        Compare that to the unelected cabal of executives who control the operations of numerous factories on different continents.

        Which one is more centralized?

        • *sigh*

          If you are reading Karl’s cooments and you think he has a point, let me ask you to do something. Go find an ant hill. KILL the queen. THERE YOU GO! The ultimate Marxist model of the utopian collective. Once the queen dies, the ants — the “workers” — now own and run the “means of production” (i.e. their own labor). Get back to me about how long it takes the hive to die — because it will…unless they produce a new queen (i.e. central govt).

          You see, the problem is simple: what Karl wants does not exist in nature and, therefore, cannot exist without an application of force.

          It is that simple 🙂

          • Ants are not humans. Human democracy does not rely on a single person. Not only this but if you go to a single anthill and kill the queen does that end all of ant-kind on Earth? I’m not sure your knowledge on ants is correct. I think ants just choose another ant larvae and raise it better in order for it to become sexually mature. Queen ants aren’t so much the ruler of the colony as much as they are the larvae factory. Ants for some reason have found it beneficial to have a reproducer in chief.
            I think the ‘take down the leader, take down the system’ analogy is more suitable to fascism rather than democracy.

    • Augger,

      I think we are being presented with clinical proof of this. It’s everywhere we look in Washington, and most everywhere in government circles outside D.C. as well.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.