Can economics explain more than sociology or/and psychology?


refreshing to see somebody on here who can understand the pitfalls of Keynesianism. On here or elsewhere. I find discussing economics with people who cannot comprehend ‘inflation’ (hidden tax, sure) nerve raking, to be honest, and considering what awaits the planet around the corner.

Never read friedman, just aware of his reputation, but von mise, hayek, rothbard,

I can agree with that.


Yes, but I remind you of the historical fact that Keynes was not the absolute winner of the Bretton Woods monetary conference. So the Bretton Woods system does not merely mean Keynesianism.

planet broken beyond repair… stable financial system??

If you ask me, then I answer you that the said financial system of Bretton Woods ended 1971, exactly on 15 August 1971 when Nixon relinquished the gold backing of the US Dollar. (And by the way: Keynes said during the Bretton Woods monetary conference that he wanted to relinquish the gold backing, but he meant the gold backing of the British Pound [ :laughing: ], and had no success, because the USA dominated the Bretton Woods monetary conference, so the gold standard was set at $ 35.00 an ounce, as you can see it on the table above.) Since the 15th of August 1971 the gold price and a phantom system of expectations of expectations have been exploding. Of course: it is an instable financial system, probably the most instable financial system of all times.

[size=85]Note: The 15th of August is also a Christian holiday, a Christian holy day: Assumption of Mary. :wink: [/size]

Richard Nixon in 1971 (!):

I’ve quite enjoyed the Hayek reading I’ve done, the fatal conceit being my favorite, and I need to do more Mises, and Rothbard. Friedman is sorta a student of them, though in a “idea whos time has come” sorta way. His papers destroying the theories of the great depression being fixed by the new deal are great… Mostly, though, I like his “Free to Choose” TV show. You can find examples of it on the Youtube. Its fun to watch (if you like that sort of thing).

Sure, many things are given to “his system” that he would never actually go along with. There are even interviews with Hayek, were he mentions that Keynes was “coming over to the other side of thinking.” Either way, it is the Keynesian system by terminology, though I suppose neo-classicists is the new name…

I stand with much of the problems with Keynesian Economics comes from a math basis. Things that work well on paper, theoretically, but don’t make much sense when put into practice empirically. It takes training in Economics to beat this into a persons head. (Or at least some good critical thinking classes, if I’m being generous to other fields.)

Also, a gold standard is stupid. (Simply put, it is an arbitrary set value that accomplishes little.) Note that the 35 an ounce has long sense been blown out of the water…

Bottom line: Government cannot mandate success, it can only mandate failure, all the little economic tricks people pretend are going to accomplish something come down to passing the failure to someone they don’t like politically.

Banks and corporations are super-organisms. Since the occidental - thus industrial - modernity these super-organisms have been becoming the dominating super-organisms, and since at least the beginning of the globalism they have been dominating the older super-organisms like the churches or the states. This implies that since then the newer super-organisms have been blackmailing the older super-organisms more and more. One of the symptoms that have been increasing since then is the female part of the human resources as a commons (compare: the tragedy of the commons).

This isn’t an issue of the organism, but the commodity that the organism is using. Banks and corporations involved in basic resources have a leverage advantage over others, not because they are better or wiser, but merely because of their particular business. No matter how much of an idiot, if he controls the monetary resources, he has power over nations. That is what usury is all about - mindless, soulless power.


If one cell of a living being (or a human being as a “cell” of a super-organism) does not work rightly, then it will almost certainly not cause the death of that living being. But if the living being (like a super-organism) as a whole does not work rightly, then this living being as a whole will almost certainly die soon, so each cell of that living being (like each human being of a super-organism) too. :wink:

Banks and secret societies in the secular human world have taken over the role of the church from civilization’s ancient past.

The church is a super-organism too, but if one compares it with the current super-organisms - one of them can buy and has bought almost all states of this planet - and take the money or monetary assets as a comparison, then one has to say: “the church is merely a small super-organism”.

Well, before the rise of today’s secular banks we must remember historically that in years past the church as a political entity once dominated banks. Think of the past role of the Catholic Church for instance.

Yes, of course.

An ethical question:

Do you think that dominating banks is good or evil?

Ethical question??
no i dont think so, the idea of “dominating and managing anybody’s life” is immoral/evil to start with.

after having put all the european countries in deep red ink, ECB blows €400billion on ‘Brexit Black Friday’ bank bailouts… and who is paying for this: taxpayers/consumers who will see their purchasing power going down even more.

alas, they have been in bed since day one