JASON X AND LEW ROCKWELL'S CULT OF MISES. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY AMERICANS ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.

So I came across someone hiding behind the name Jason. Jason is typical of those suffering from hyper-indoctrination. Jason belongs to the Cult of Mises.

The Cult of Mises was started by Lew Rockwell.

People like Jason like to believe they support free-market capitalism, but they have been so programmed to not even understand what free-market capitalism is. Here are some of the gems programmed into the mind of Jason and here are my responses.

Jason: 

The fact is capital goes where its treated the best.

Me: 

Capital doesn't do anything. Capital isn't alive. Capital can't decide. 

Individuals of mankind decide what they do with their property — their right of ownership in chattel, works of the mind and future obligations. Individuals decide whether or not to put their property into production.

Jason: 

The market will adjust.

Me: 

Markets are abstractions. Markets aren't alive. Markets can't act. Markets can't adjust.

Only individuals are alive. Only individuals can act. Only individuals can adjust.

Jason: 

By capital we mean individuals, which in mass consist of the market. 

Me:

Capital means property put to production. That is all it means. Capital doesn't mean individuals. From where did you accept that stupid, false belief?

• CAPITALISM. BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, YOU WOULD BE LIVING AS A BARE SUBSISTENCE SAVAGE.

Jason: 

The market is a living organism, an adaptive complex system.

Me:

Markets are abstraction. Only individuals exist who can act to try to trade property in pursuit of profit.

Jason:

Man is the economic agent. The market is living in all but name, comprised of millions of individuals. This is why the "market" fears, has greed, euphoria and pessimism

Me:

You have let metaphorical speech of mantras muddle your mind. Thus, you have accepted a slew of false beliefs.

Jason:

I can't hire anyone I want at what wage I want. The state interferes in my right to work and to hire. 

Me:

An enterpriser is free to hire anyone resident of the USA and free to pay at whatever wage rate he can negotiate at or above lawgivers' minimum. 

If you stopped and then started to think, you would see that minimum wage might cause some products never to come to market.

But also, you would see that absent welfare, no employer could pay minimum wage because no one would work at a loss. Wages must at least equal costs in the absence of welfare subsidy.

All welfare paid to Americans who work, whether EIC, or otherwise ends up being a subsidy to employers who pay minimum wage. If you rid Americans of TANF, SNAP, Section 8, Pell, and so forth, you can have unrestricted immigration.

As it is the American system of welfare and compulsory taxation means that current workers who pay taxes to Congress and who can't get out of compulsory taxation through write-offs in effect subsidize enterprisers who pay wages below costs of living. 

Subsidizing enterprisers means inauthentic capitalism. It's crony politics.

• IT'S ALWAYS CRONY POLITICS, CRONY GOVERNANCE AND CRONY REGULATORY CAPTURE 
• TRY CRONY POLITICS, CRONY GOVERNANCE AND CRONY REGULATORY CAPTURE BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CRONY CAPITALISM.

Unrestricted immigration would only make that worse.

Jason:

I don’t really care if they are illegal or not. 

Me:

Your support of illegal aliens is a kind of crony politics. Do you not know what illegal means? Enterprisers are not free to hire those who are not residents of the USA. 

While hiring illegals is good for an individual business owner who now can enjoy unearned profits by free-riding on everyone else, if enough firm operators do so, it's disastrous for all.

Jason:

If the illegals work for cheaper, then let them bring down labor. That makes it cheaper to run a business anyhow.

Me: 

No one will work at a loss. Americans won't work at jobs where the pay rate fails to cover costs (i.e., living expenses).

Wage rates are prices and get set by double auctions — English auctions for would-be employers and Dutch auctions for would-be workers.

Illegals, whether from Mexico or elsewhere, beat Americans at wage auctions. The can offer lower bids for wages for work done because their costs are lower. Illegals avoid huge costs incurred by Americans who must pay income taxes to Congress and their states' lawgivers respectively. 

It's not that illegals don't do the work that Americans won't do. Illegals do the work at below cost, below break even. What they do is akin to the Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s known as dumping.

Jason:

The fact that people will bid wages down is part of capitalism and would happen in an unhampered economy regardless. 

Me:

But in an unhampered economy, wages never could fall below break even. Firms couldn't exist that today rely on the welfare system to subsidize their low wage workers (wages below break even).

Jason:

You are interfering with natural process in the economy.

Me:

I am not doing anything.

Illegal immigration is a boon to crony-political pseudo-capitalists and not free-market capitalists. Firm operators who employ illegals enjoy unearned profits. Without illegals, many would be forced to exit the field of competition.

Having immigration laws and welfare and then having enterprisers cheating by hiring illegals harms everyone else. 

Jason:

But, but, but, the higher wages are, the higher costs of production are. The higher costs of production are, the higher prices are.

The higher prices are, the smaller are the quantities of goods and services demanded and the number of workers employed in producing them.

Me:

If what you claim is true, then explain residential realty in the 2000s. As house prices went up to records every year, record employment in construction went up.

If what you claim is true, then explain medicine. Medicine is at an all-time high in demand with the highest prices employing the most it ever has.

Jason: 

If there were suddenly a whole lot more oranges, we’d expect the price of oranges to fall or the number of oranges that went uneaten to surge.

Me: 

Prices get set by winning bidders and not by suppliers. When there were record car sales in the USA — record supply of cars — prices were highest.

Prices have nothing to do with costs. Prices get set by winning bidders of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer. That is my Law of Prices. 

Costs arise from the sum of sales on prices set by winning bidders. If the sum of sales of a producer fails to cover costs, that producer goes to ruin. That is my Axiom of Profit.

If costs set prices — which is Ricardo's fallacy by the way — then no firm would ever go out of business. When costs would rise, firm operators would simply put up prices.

Jason:

Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones.

Me: 

There you have committed the Fallacy of Non-Sequitur. A flood of immigrants that causes the prime working age growth rate to accelerate will cause a fall in wage rates as wage rates are prices. 

A fall in wages causes a fall in prices. A fall in prices kills the return on capital. Future capital spending gets curtailed as no one invests to lose.

Flooding a country with illegals suppresses capital spending because enterprisers can't get suitable returns to capital in the face of cheap labor. With capital spending suppressed, wages are suppressed. All of that causes an economy to go into a death spiral.

A country can't have a growth rate in prime working-age population outstripping the spending rate on capital. If that happens, wages fall and thus prices fall.

On falling prices, even less capital gets deployed. On less capital, per capita productivity falls. Returns to extant capital fall. This is a spiral of capitalism death. 

Unrestricted immigration under a system of welfare leads to a capitalism death spiral as few can gain increasing returns to capital when working age population growth exceeds capital spending growth.

With your wrong-headed support for illegals, you are advocating for the economy to die, Jason.

The empirical facts of reality affirm me. The flood of illegal and legal immigrants suppressed wages. When the edifice of capital built on over-extended credit collapsed as returns weren't forthcoming, millions were thrown out of work. Since 2008, the economy has shrunk.

The empirical facts of reality disprove you, Jason.

Jason:

Where have I heard this argument before? Oh wait, its been repeated every 30 to 50 years by the spoiled classes every time new immigration waves come and do jobs for cheaper. It’s the Germans, the Jews or Irish and now it’s the Mexicans.

Immigration made us great in the 19th century and will do so now. 1800s immigration settled the Great West. You blame immigrants like everyone did back then. 

Me:

If I were to blame anyone it would be past and present members of Congress. It's obvious why foreigners flee their countries. No one should blame them for doing so.

It should have been obvious to you that before 1914 when immigration hardly was restricted, not only was there immigration but also there was emigration. Many who came left soon thereafter as they couldn't make it in America.

Subsequently, a natural flow of wages existed whereby employers had to pay at least break even. There was no welfare to subsidize their inefficient operations.

It's likely, that most Americans between the ages of 40 and 90 would agree the best years of American life, economically, happened between 1940 and 1990. And in all those years, immigration never exceeded 8.8% of population.

For the first 70 years of the USA (1790 to 1850), immigration constituted 2.61% of population on average in any decade. For the next 80 years (1860 to 1930), immigration raced at 13.7% on average in any decade. For the next 60 years (1940 to 1990) immigration clicked at a reasonable 6.8% on average in any decade. For the last two decades (2000, 2010) immigration ran at 12% a year. 

• THE BIG LIE. AMERICANS ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS 

Jason:

You just think illegal immigrants are stealing jobs and money.

Me:

You don't even know what money is. You have no idea that you are living under a fiduciary system.

There is no money. Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. The Romans said so. It's their word.

Cash is bank credit circulating in perpetuity. Cash isn't money.Money can exist without banking. Cash requires banking. Legal tender cash requires both banking and enforcement agents of lawgivers, or that what most unthinking call government.

• ON CREDIT, MONEY, CURRENCY, INFLATION, PRICES, AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE
• AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIST STEVE KEEN CONFUSES CASH WITH MONEY. NO ONE SHOULD LISTEN TO ACADEMICIAN ECONOMISTS AND THEIR FALSE DOCTRINES.
• BITCOIN IS SOFTWARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. BITCOIN IS NOT LEGAL TENDER CASH.

Jason:

But he Austrian school of economics teaches against you. If you don't belong to one of the approved schools of economics, you can't be right.

Me:

Academia economics is wrong. Economics is a false dogma.  Academicians in the field of economics falsely attempt to explain the phenomena of commerce through a faulty lens of scarcity and utility and marginalism.

WHY IS THE ECONOMY SO HORRIBLE? BECAUSE ACADEMIA ECONOMICS IS FAKE.

The reality of commerce is far different. Commerce deals with the trade of property — right of ownership — in pursuit of profit.

Economics is wrong. It doesn't matter if someone is in the Cult of Keynes or like you, in the Cult of Mises. That one has wrong beliefs and so do you, Jason. What you believe is false, a mythology, the stuff of your cult.

Academia economics is mythology and fails to comport to reality. Academia economics, regardless of neoclassical school, fails to deal with the phenomena of trade — property and profits. Instead, academia economics focuses upon utility and scarcity, both of which have nothing to do with commerce.

The worst bit about contemporary economics is this: the field fails to find its basis in commercial banking and jurisprudence. Yet, the entire economy has as its basis commercial banking and jurisprudence.

Neoclassical economics is false dogma. It doesn't matter what school. Believers in economics as a field can't accurately describe commercial reality precisely because they don't have a science. They have conflicting ideas and false definitions.

Jason:

The Austrian School is the correct one.

Me:

The "Austrian School" was a school of neoclassical economics and thus arose from the same fallacies as all of the other neoclassical schools, which in turn arose from the classical fallacies of Smith and Ricardo.

It's unlikely that you know that at one time, the Austrian School was known as The Psychology School. The entire theory of the school was predicated on pseudo-scientific psychology never proven in reality and not needed at all to explain the trade of property in purchases and sales in the pursuit of profits.

There is no room for psychology in an accurate, authentic theory of commerce. An authentic theory gets predicated on property and profit. The application of psychology in the art of commerce is another field. That is called marketing.

The Austrian School has been defunct for decades upon decades. The founders of the school all died long ago. Menger, Böhm-Bawerk and von Wieser are all dead.

Jason:

I suggest you read Von Mises book.

Me:

Those connected with Mises.org go to great lengths to proclaim the Austrian School (and rightly, it’s the Austrian School of Neo-classical Economics, replete with many fallacies of Ricardo and Mills) as the one true school. They worship Mises in a cult erected to him by Lew Rockwell.

Mises wasn't really part of the Austrian School. And neither was his disciple Murray Rothbard, an American from New York City.

Mises earned a degree in law and didn't even work as an economics professor. NYU administrators let him teach but never paid Mises. A board of trustees member had to dig into his own pocket to give Mises private subsidy, in essence. Mises was little better than a sociologist.

Mises was a mere copycat. Mises lifted his economic thought from guys who preceded him by decades.

Mises spewed a silly, false theory around time preference to explain interest. Mises swallowed hard on a giant waste of time, the work of Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. Even Carl Menger, the father of the Austrian school of Neoclassical Economics had this to say:

“The time will come when people will realize that Böhm-Bawerk’s theory is one of the greatest errors ever committed.” ~ Carl Menger

Mises did not understand banking, at all. In his lecture, Mises said, “The best proof that inflation, the increase in the quantity of money …” and thus Mises believed, wrongly, that an increase in the quantity of money is inflation. Mises could hold this false belief only if he did not understand banking, which is quite clear that he did not.

As well, Mises did not understand interest whatsoever. His “originary interest” amounts to off-the-deep-end foolery. Mises throws out the window the Law of Prices when it comes to interest and instead throws in some crazed false belief called originary interest as his driver.

Mises pushed a rather stupid, false theory on interest that idiots today parrot. Mises time preference theory of interest is quite wrong.

• INTEREST, CAPITALISTS AND FUTURISTIC TIME COPS

Both Mises and his disciple, Rothbard, were talking shop academicians who never worked in commercial enterprise in their lives. Mises and Rothbard made many errors because of being lifetime academicians neither ran any business much less a profitable one. Without proper entrepreneurial experience, Mises and Rothbard lacked referential experience to understand how capital works.

Rothbard and Mises suffered from a slew of false beliefs about commercial banking. Neither Rothbard nor von Mises understood commercial banking. Rothbard was paid by taxpayers and thus collected what amounted to high-paying welfare.

Rothbard was such an idiot that he believed there was double claims on deposits. Rothbard didn't understand commercial banking. There isn't any such double claims.

Anyone who knows about Commercial Law knows that a banker is a trader who buys cash and debt by selling bank credits. In a purchase and sale, a customer, known as a depositor sells property in cash or receivables to a banker and buys property in bank credits.

With property in bank credits, the bank customer has a right of action to demand an amount of cash from his banker at a future date. Evidences of such right includes checking account bank statements and passbook savings books. In commercial banking law, a deposit isn't a depositum, but actually a mutuum in law of a purchase and sale of cash for deposits.

In a deposit transaction, which is truly a mutuum, so-called depositors buy bank credits and sell cash, other bank credits or debt in a purchase and sale. Depositors get deposits as evidence of their right of action against bankers when in a purchase and sale, selling their cash, other bank credits or debt.

There are no double claims. Bankers own deposits. Depositors own rights of action.

Jason:

I don't care what you say. We're right. It's all on Mises.org.

Me:

Mises.org is a little more than a superstitious cult. Because of fear and anguish over their lives, many look for someone they can claim is authority to explain why things are the way they are. Such ones need a pontiff, a Wizard of Oz.

For Miseans in the Cult of Mises, Mises is their wizard, their pontiff.

Jason:

Your policy is fundamentally anti-labor and anti-poor people.

Me:

First, I don't have a policy. Second, the truth of what I say is free-markets capitalism.

What you advocate is anti-worker, anti-citizen, pro-criminal and pro-crony politics.

You support property-destroying illegal activity. Hiring illegals is no different than cheating on the claimed weight of content in products.

Worse, advocating for hiring illegals is akin to advocating for having your unprofitable work subsidized by others. Enterprisers who can't break even unless they hire illegals are inefficient and wasting resources. They are bringing to market products that not enough want to warrant profits.

Those who don't want to trade property honestly in pursuit of profits and who can't enjoy otherwise higher rates of profits hire illegals.

Jason:

Obviously, you are not an Austrian. Neo-Keynesian? Monetarist? Classical?

Me:

Unlike you, I advocate for free markets, free enterprise and free individuals. You want illegals and crony politics to reign supreme.

Jason:

You are just a collectivist!

Me: 

It's laughable that you accuse me of being who you are — a collectivist. You want everyone else to subsidize your illegal aliens and in so doing, subsidize your faulty business.

Jason:

You can't have unrestricted immigration but you must eliminate welfare.

Me:

And now you have agreed with me. Thanks for playing.

The converse of that is, you can't have unrestricted immigration and welfare. Illegal aliens are engaged in illegal, unrestricted immigration.

I have said it above, both ways.

——

Jason believes in hiring illegal aliens. Jason believes that decreeing anyone illegal interferes in his right to hire whom he pleases. Jason doesn't understand jurisprudence so Jason doesn't know what right means. 

Through his stupidity, Jason has advocated for a collapse in capitalism. 

Most capital gets bought on credit with expected rates of return. Most capital gets used for more than one year. When working age population suddenly increases, wages fall and thus prices fall. The returns on extant capital fails to materialize.

If there are not increasing returns to capital, no one will invest in capital. Without capital there are no wages. Without ever increasing returns, there can be no advance in true wages.

Massively increasing the prime working age population, roughly 18-54, both depresses wages and leads to a capital death spiral. When the prime working age labor growth rate exceeds the capital spending rate, wages fall. Falling wages necessitates a fall in prices. A fall in prices causes a fall on the return to capital.

When wages fall for everyone, prices must fall. Falling prices on extant capital bought on credit require adjustment by enterprisers to maintain their return. They cut workers.

When workers get cut, there are fewer who can buy. Fewer bidders can bid lower to win products. Prices fall gain.

A new round of falling prices leads to a new round of less capital as returns aren't there. If there are not increasing returns to capital, no one buys capital. No one goes into business to lose. The economy goes into a capitalism death spiral.

To understand this more: SOPHIE'S CHOICE OF CAPITAL OR LABOR. A FREE-MARKETS LIBERTARIAN BECOMES AN ANTI-CAPITALIST AND PERPETUATES AN ECONOMICS MYTH

All should favor free immigration, but then also should favor the end of welfare and income taxation. You can't have the former without the latter.

Read more ...

COMMERCIAL REALITY. A CRASH-COURSE IN UNDERSTANDING HOW IT ALL WORKS

Property means right of ownership.

It doesn't mean chattel nor possession. Anyone can have property in chattel, work of the mind or credit.

A house isn't property. It's chattel. An improved parcel isn't property. It's chattel.
Someone can have property in a house and property in an improved parcel.

People buy and sell property in purchases and sales of trade.

When you go to your supermarket and buy milk, you buy property in milk. You aren't buying the milk. You are taking possession in what you have property when you bag it and bring it home.

The agents of the owners of the supermarket (those who have property in the supermarket) sell you their property in milk and buy your property in bank credit (either cash or checkable deposits).

What gets traded in the purchase and sale is property, not the stuff.

Wealth is property of exchange.

Things aren't wealth until the moment of trade. Things cease to be wealth thereafter (e.g., A once-new bicycle that has become rusted with bent spokes isn't wealth if its owner can't sell it to someone else).

Capital means property put to production.

Capital does not mean cash or money — coined metal by weight and fineness, which no longer exists. Too many confuse cash for capital because of paid in capital.

Labor is the poor man's capital.

The worker uses his labor (skills, body) to create work.

The work the laborer creates is his wealth. The laborer sells work through time in a purchase and sale and buys wages.

Work of the laborer is capital of the enterpriser.

If the work done is the final product, it becomes inventory (property of potential wealth). If it can be traded (bought and sold in a purchase and sale), it becomes wealth of the enterpriser.

Work done is no different than any other capital of the enterprisers.

From the enterpriser's perspective, work done isn't any different than any other component to produce a product. Any enterpriser buys work done and packages the work done into a product for final sale. Sometimes the work done is the final product.

Either way, the enterpriser acquires property in work done by trading property in bank credit, whether cash or bank credits negotiable with instruments. Said another way, the enterpriser sells his cash or credit and buys work done.

Most believe the employer-employee relationship like the parent-child relationship.

Wages aren't a gift. Wages aren't an allowance from mom and dad. Wages are income from recurring sales.

How is it most can understand what sales are for Wal-Mart, but not for those who sell work through time for wages?

The onus is on those who sell work for wages to gain better skills over time. They must either sell more work for the same time or sell the same work at lower prices.

How is it that most can understand producers of cars need to become more efficient at producing cars over time, but not those who sell work through time for wages?

Few have a problem with this when it comes to buying all of the stuff they like to buy, e.g., cars, TVs, mattresses, meals in restaurants, flights on airlines. The enjoy ever lowering prices over time. That is how their living standards rise.

These should help you. 

• WORK NEVER CREATES VALUE. WORK CREATES PROPERTY.
• BUT I SPENT 150 HOURS HANDCRAFTING THAT OIL ON CANVAS! OR THE LABORER'S SILLY THEORY OF VALUE.

Labor never competes with capital. There is no labor without capital.

Never does any enterpriser ask himself "Should I hire people or should I automate?" That never has reflected commercial reality. 

The true question is this: Is there a dearth of workers or is there an abundance of workers?

If there is an abundance of workers, there can't be much of a return to capital (property put to production). Thus, enterprisers hire workers, inefficiently.

For more on all of that, read: 

• SOPHIE'S CHOICE OF CAPITAL OR LABOR. A FREE-MARKETS LIBERTARIAN BECOMES AN ANTI-CAPITALIST AND PERPETUATES AN ECONOMICS MYTH

Capital is the source of wages (see: CAPITALISM. BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, YOU WOULD BE LIVING AS A BARE SUBSISTENCE SAVAGE). If returns to capital are paltry, wages are low. High wages comes from much capital because returns to capital are present and increasing.

When car manufacturing in the USA went from hand-made to massive steel stamping machines operated by men, true wages went up and went up high. High wages for auto workers were the result of efficiency of output owing to high returns to capital.

Where there are many workers even in the face of capital, wages are low — China. Where there is no capital, everyone lives as at bare subsistence — much of Africa.

Debt is the flip side of credit. There is no debt without credit. The two words describe the same relationship. Without credit there wouldn't be much of an economy. Most Americans would still be living on farms and working for their parents or grandparents. Life in America would look much like it did before the 1830s.

Read more ...

WHO NEEDS A CAR AND A 747 WHEN YOU CAN'T BUY A GALLON OF GAS?

So yesterday, a dialogue of sorts opened up between Tim Worstall of Forbes as well as the Adam Smith Institute and myself. Forbes published a piece of work by Worstall in which Worstall makes these claims about gasoline prices in America:

• "Futures speculation doesn't change the price of gasoline one whit"
• Americans do not set the price of gasoline in the USA
• The global balance of supply sets the price of gasoline in the USA 
• Futures trading does not affect the price of physical commodities
• David Ricardo rendered an Iron Law of One Price 

Worstall addressed me and said this bit of foolery,

"[A]t the more general level gasoline prices are set by the international price of crude oil. If this were not true then gas prices would not move in lock step with that price of international crude. Given that they do therefore they must be so influenced...There are significant gasoline exports from the US: so the market is so integrated."

Worstall's beliefs are quite absurd. Worstall believes that crude oil prices set the price of gasoline. Worstall tries to defend the false belief that input prices set output prices. In so doing, Worstall expresses the fallacy that costs set price.

It was Worstall's beloved David Ricardo who is well-known for having started that fallacy. It is Karl Marx who is well-known for perpetuating that fallacy in is his foolish “Labor Theory of Value”.

If it were true that crude set gasoline, that is, if the fallacy of costs set price were true, then why do refiners go out of business? Why do retailers go out of business?  Why wouldn’t businessmen merely charge costs to avoid bankruptcy? Why wouldn’t businessmen merely raise prices at will to cover increasing costs to avoid bankruptcy?

Crude oil prices do not set gasoline prices, ever. Gasoline prices for gasoline bought by retailers are set by futures markets players. To believe anything else is to reveal profound confusion on the matter.

Futures speculation sets prices of refined gasoline purchased by retailers. At the delivery date of a futures contract, someone must take physical delivery of that refined gasoline at the settlement price of the contract.

The entire purpose of futures speculation is to set prices of commodities. In so doing, futures markets players keep the flow of gasoline to retailers both in times of glut and in times of shortage.

Speculation into graded contracts creates a steady, active market for property of all kinds without respect to on-the-spot winning bids for what is on offer at any moment. The purpose of organized futures speculation is to give rise to consistent profit from transmuting property as capital into property as wealth under efficiency.

Gasoline retailers are price takers of the gasoline price set by futures markets players. Oil refined into gasoline is the product they sell at retail. Gasoline retailers are retailers the same as supermarket operators who sell milk, eggs, bread, meat.

All prices adhere to the one and only true law that governs all of commerce — the Law of Prices. The Law of Prices holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer sets the price.

It is drivers alone who buy gasoline who set the retail price from their winning bids.  Once futures players set the price of gasoline for retailers, retailers try to make a go of it by accepting prices set by drivers who buy gasoline.

The whole trick of business is producing so that one can adhere to the Axiom of Profit on given prices set by winning bidders. The Axiom of Profit holds the sum of sales on prices set by winning bidders must at least equal the cost of production, otherwise the seller goes to ruin.

If drivers drive less, buying many thousands fewer gallons of gasoline, retailers shall be forced to accept lower winning bids for what they have on offer.  For some, owing to inefficiency, they shall sell at a loss and get forced into bankruptcy. That is the great Axiom of Profit in action.

In 1994, there were 202,800 retail sites for the sales of gasoline. In 2012, that number had fallen to 156,065. The total number of sites has fallen -29.9% falling at a rate of -1.4% a year.

Thus, it can be seen that between 1994 and 2012, many retailers could not make a go of it profitably on extant prices for gasoline set by futures speculators. Therefore, these unprofitable retailers exited the field.

Worstall is quite wrong about all of it, as usual from my experiences reading his work. Perhaps Worstall should find another occupation as he seems to be wrong, consistently on all matters of commerce.

Reality thoroughly contradicts Worstall. As to prices of gasoline, the EIA reports prices in the USA differ by region. As well, Bloomberg reports prices for gasoline differ by country. Thus, it can be seen there is no fictitious global balance of supply and demand that sets the price of gasoline in the USA as Worstall so wrongly believes.

Further, imports of refined gasoline can come into the USA profitably only if outlays to refine elsewhere are low enough such that when combined with transport outlays, foreign producers can at least break even on prices set here in various regions of the USA. As can be seen here by PADD (Petroleum Administrative Defense Districts) region, most foreign exporters of crude to Americans do not also export gasoline likely because it is not profitable to do so.

David Ricardo never wrote about an “iron law of one price.” Germans academicians stuck Ricardo with the phrase, “the Iron Law” and they did so because Ricardo had written something about wages only and not other prices.

Specifically, Ricardo claimed there is a tendency for population to rise as soon as wages would rise above bare necessaries to sustain living thus. This thought became known as the "Iron Law of Wages."

Worstall tries to make an appeal to authority by mentioning Bank of Sweden laureate, Paul Krugman. According to Worstall, Krugman claims futures trading doesn’t affect the price of commodities.

Krugman is an expert in academic economics. However, Krugman appears not to know anything about commerce.  Like Worstall, Krugman is a shop-talker and not a man who deals in profit and loss from selling stuff. Krugman works at think tanks and he teaches.

Read more ...

THE BURNING PLATFORM AND OTHER ZERO HEDGE CARNIES

Predictive doom is imminent, always, but never here. That is the carnival show trick of every doomsayer on the Internet today.

So, The Burning Platform came upon my radar today. The article I read has so much carnival show hokum that I became amused. Sadly, the comments reveal a slew of true believers to yet another doomster cult, the Cult of The Burning Platform.

Jim Quinn seems to be the name of the guy behind The Burning Platform.

All cults feature these: a leader, new recruits, initiates, true believers, jargon, rites, rituals. It's most helpful for a cult to have it's own bible.

The bible of the Cult of Burning Platform, is a work titled The Fourth Turning by co-authors William Strauss and Neil Howe. The Fourth Turning is yet another in a long line of hokum works trading on the fearful who need to believe in something. According to Amazon.com, the work by Strauss and Howe mixes demographics with stories of history in effort to lure readers into believing that prophets Strauss and Howe have unlocked the secret code to predict all future acts of mankind.

Taken from Strauss and Howe bible, the jargon keyword for true believers of the Cult of Burning Platform is saeculum. The Etruscans were the first to speak the word. To the Etruscans saeculum meant the time from a founding event to the death of all those who were alive at the founding event. So back on February 7, 2012, when Florence Green died, the World War 1 saeculum came to an end as Ms. Green was the last surviving person to have served in WWI.

Supposedly, according to Strauss and Howe, history is not linear, but cyclical. One cycle corresponds to a saeculum. Within each saeculum, there are four "turnings."

Quinn, writes:

"A period of Crisis arrives like Winter, approximately 60 years after the resolution of the prior Crisis, with a climax occurring approximately 80 years after the prior Crisis climax. The generational dynamics based upon human life cycles have lined up once again into Crisis mode."

In true carnival palmistry, Quinn presents a table of saeculum to entertain his readers. According to Quinn, the Banking Crisis of 2008 marks the start of a two-decade long ever worsening "winter"  that shall lead to a "bloody climax."



Prophets push belief in cycles and in so doing, leverage what tricksters have known for hundreds of years — humans strive to see patterns in things, naturally.

In 2008, editor in chief of Skeptic, Michael Shermer coined the word patternicity to label the concept of finding meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. As founder of The Skeptics Society, Shermer investigates pseudo-scientific and supernatural claims.

In 1958, German neurologist Klaus Conrad described the onset of delusional thinking in psychosis when someone experiences delusion as revelation. Conrad called this mind phenomenon apophenia. The sufferer of an apophany believes he has gained insight, but that isn't so.

It's easy to cherry-pick a starting event for a saeculum, if one finds a convenient ending echoing ending event. Does the Panic of 1893 echo the Panic of 1819? Does the Wall Street crash of 1929 echo the Panic of 1857? Does the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 echo the War of the Seventh Coalition and the Battle of Waterloo?

In all my years, there has been continual crisis, from the Vietnam War to the Afghanistan War, from the Dollar Crisis that lead to the closing of the gold window to the Banking Crisis of 2008. Every year, there seems to be big-scale natural disasters of all kinds such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, droughts and big-scale man-made accidents of all kinds such as factory explosions, nuclear melt downs, ferry capsizings, passenger air craft crashes. And every year, there is war ongoing somewhere on earth. Days could be spent cataloging all of the crises — Fall of Saigon, Iranian hostage crisis, Black Monday October 19, 1987, Chernobyl, World Trade Center 9/11, Fukushima Daiichi.

To be sure to lure in readers, Quinn points out villains — evil wealthy men, bought-off politicians, paid-off media producers, shadowy "invisible government" — and all of their machination of disinformation and entertainment. To hook his catches, Quinn presents a long list of breads and circuses as proof of machination — toxic fast food paid for with forced taxpaying funded EBT cards, The Kardashians, Duck Dynasty, Twitter, Facebook, professional sports, and Hollywood movies. And like any fiery brimstone and treacle preacher, Quinn quotes chapter and verse from the The Fourth Turning, the bible of Cult of Burning Platform.

The word history enters into English during the late 1300s from the Old French estoire meaning relation of incidents whether true or false. The Old French estoire has its origins in the Latin historia meaning narrative of past events, account, tale, story; and ultimately from the Greek historia meaning a learning or knowing by inquiry; an account of one's inquiries, history, record, narrative.

Quinn says "History does not proceed in a straight line of forward advancement." Quinn seems to not know what the word history means.

Of course, history doesn't move ahead, take a course, proceed. History isn't about the future! History is about the past!



History is a man-made story telling about the past, a cherry-picking of documented facts from among all of the facts recorded and not recorded, told as explanation for such things already happened such as succession of power as well as the succession of ideas, embodied or not.

If anyone were to stop and then start to think about reality, all history reveals the struggle between appropriation versus acquisition. History is about the struggle for property, which is the right of ownership and not what is owned.

Said another way, all history reveals the struggle between men who engage in politics against those who engage in commerce. Politics is about war, taxation, confiscation, incarceration. Commerce is about voluntary purchases and sales of trade.

Ultimately, all history reveals the struggle between men who seek to rule by tribalism against those who seek to be free through individualism.

Hucksters of all stripes have sold countless works of prophecy. As it does for most things, the Internet has made it easier for hucksters to reach ever more who are desperate to make sense of everything happening around them. Zero Hedge seems like a carnival by publishing the works of many prophet doomsayers.

For my work on other doomsayers, check out Bizarro Theater Presents — Doomsayers!


Nostradamus and Tarot cards live on!

Read more ...

WHY ISN'T THE ECONOMY DRIVING ANYWHERE? THE CAPITAL ENGINE LACKS FUEL!

So I've been spreading foreboding of late, first with  IT'S LOOKING LIKE MORE RECESSION IN THE U.S.A. IN 2014 and then with S&P 500 MINI-MANIA HITS. 24% CORRECTION OR 42% CRASH UPCOMING?

And now I've had a look at where producers stand with their mixed-use capital and their circulating capital. Specifically, I've looked at commercial and industrial loans gotten from commercial banks and asset-backed commercial paper.

Those who understand financing of trade, businessmen tend to use loans to acquire property in capital retained through time subject to known loss. The known loss is known as depreciation and the name given to that kind of capital is fixed capital.

Businessmen tend to seek accomodation of property in credit receivables they hold against debtors. Such property put into negotiable instrument form is known as commercial paper. Businessmen use property in deposits, otherwise known as wealth, gained from having their commercial paper discounted by a banker, to pay expenses. In so doing, they transmute wealth into capital.

Here's the fixed capital picture.



It's hard to get a good idea of what this should look like over long time as the data set goes back only to 1985. That said, it appears that businessmen go through periods where they build up fixed capital to generate sales.


Here's the circulating capital picture.




And here is what fixed capital and circulating capital look like together.



It appears that true asset-backed commercial paper gives a good indicator ahead of what producers plan to do toward fixed capital acquisition.

Yet what is most troubling is what I call the Capital Engine ratio. Let's have a look.




Think of fixed capital as a car engine and circulating capital as the gasoline. Right now, there is $6.09 of fixed capital loans to $1 circulating capital. 

Before Q3 2007 peak credit, the Capital Engine ratio averaged $1.34:$1. Since the banking credit collapse and following crisis, the Capital Engine ratio averages to $3.22:$1. The Capital Engine ratio has grown a whopping 459% since peak credit.

In short, there isn't fuel, petrol, gasoline to power the engine beyond idling. 

What has caused this stall state? Why, Ben Bernanke, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, the supposed expert on the Great Depression, is the man who decided to have an engine with little fuel. Death by billions and billions of cuts is what Bernanke believes is the way to handle a banking crisis and deflation after a massive inflation. 

Foolishly, while chairman, Bernanke's entire plan had been interest rate suppression. His successor, Janet Yellen agrees with Bernanke's approach.

When rates are kept low, capitalists seek return outside of the U.S.A. That further puts strain on bank deposits and thus further weakening bankers already weakened from crisis after inflation. 

The worst bit of the Greatest Depression engineered foolishly by Ben Bernanke has been to hurt wage earners. Had interest rates risen, wage earners those living on fixed incomes would have gained buying power. Their living standards 

Central bankers always should do the opposite of prolonging recession. They should accelerate the collapse. Rates should get put up. Bankers should stepped up acccomodation, discounting every bit of commercial paper presented. That is how keep work flowing.

Entrepreneur-adventurers should face the music for their wrong fixed capital structures.

The sooner one gets through hard times to the bottom the sooner revival can happen. In fact, law makers should craft law to require by law accelerated recessions.

Read more ...

THOMAS PIKETTY, 696 PAGES OF FOOLERY DESTROYED IN LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES

A French egghead academician with no business experience, Thomas Piketty, believes he has discovered the fatal flaw of capitalism so much so that Piketty wasted time writing an almost 700-page book about it and something like a whopping 15 years of his life researching it.

Piketty believes there is relationship between the rate of growth of an economy as expressed by GDP and the rate of return enjoyed by capitalists. 

Piketty calls the rate of return earned by capitalists R and the GDP, G. Piketty claims that when the return to capitalists is greater than GDP growth (R > G), "the past devours the future." 

The return to capitalists (their share of profit) can grow faster than GDP, easily. However, there is a limit, a limit Piketty fails to see precisely because Piketty knows nothing of trade and thus authentic economics.

If Piketty knew reality he would know this: 

The return to capitalists never can exceed total profit. All returns to capitalists are shares of profit and not sales.  

Profit is what is stands after paying expenses, including all wages and what politicians take as their taxes.

GDP is merely the sum of all sales. Alternatively, GDP can get calculated as the sum of all incomes. It means the same.

It's irrelevant if return to capitalists has grown at 9% or 90%. It's irrelevant that return to capitalists for any firm or all firms grows faster than GDP. 

Always, profit is a fraction of sales. Said another way, always, profit is a fraction of GDP. 

In the end, profit acts as limit. It's impossible to have a share of profit exceed 100%. 

Piketty needs a lesson in trade, or commerce, or what is truly authentic economics and not the foolery of academia economics.

The entirety of trade, or commerce, or real economics ties up with two words — property and profit.

All trade gets governed by one one, true, infrangible law and one axiom — the Law of Prices and the Axiom of Profit. The Law of Prices holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer set the price. The Axiom of Profit holds the sum of sales must at least equal the cost of production or the producer goes to ruin. 

The name for property put to making stuff is called capital. The name for property put to purchase and sale for cash and credit is wealth.  

Though most think of property as things possessed, property always has meant the right of ownership and never the thing owned. Only when property gets created, can trade arise between two persons. 

Without profit from effort, anyone would lack buying power to buy anything else. Without property, no one can trade. 

At less than break even, anyone would stop trying to produce property. No one works at a loss.

When profit is growing on the same sum of sales, this means producers are becoming more efficient. When profit is growing on increasing sales, this means ever more of the whole economy are gaining buying power and becoming efficient. This ever more includes workers and entrepreneurs.

What Piketty fails to realize that when he Piketty says "capital reproduces itself faster than output increases," in so many words, Piketty has said capital reproduces itself faster than wealth. 

This is good! All should want capital to grow faster than wealth! Without capital there can be no wealth! 

In CAPITALISM. BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, YOU WOULD BE LIVING AS A BARE SUBSISTENCE SAVAGE, I show how laborers would toil barely producing anything, living by bare subsistence without capitalism.

Again, because Piketty only understands the fake world of academia economics and doesn't understand the real world of trade, Piketty fails to see that when the rate of return to capitalists is growing faster than profit, capitalists are enjoying greater bargaining power against entrepreneur-adventurers.

Interest is a price and conforms to the Law of Prices. In the credit market, capitalists bid down in a Dutch auction against each other. Entrepreneur-adventurers bid up in an English auction against each other.

This better bargaining power of capitalists has arisen because there are not enough capitalists engaged in intra-capitalist competition and not enough entrepreneur-adventurers at all.

Entrepreneur-adventurers are futures speculators who ensure enough capitalists remain in business, but not too many. Thus, entrepreneur-adventurers are natural regulators of capitalists.

When there is too much bureaucracy with too much regulation, this pushes up costs and stands as a barrier to entry for too many would-have-been-otherwise entrepreneur-adventurers. The shrinking field of entrepreneurs leads to better bargaining power for capitalists.

Robert E. Litan of the Brookings Institute has revealed for the first time in 30 years, business "deaths" in the U.S. exceeded business "births" and only 600,000 net new jobs were created in each quarter of 2012 (Declining Business Dynamism in the United States: A Look at States and Metros).

So as a campus Marxist, what is Piketty's prescription to cure the ills of his false conclusion? Why Piketty sounds the socialist battle cry — Tax the rich! Off with their heads!

Of course, Piketty can't see implication of his prescription. Curtailing capital will result in far fewer products and thus far fewer ventures. Worse, curtailing capital will lead to less employment and much lower wages owing to more employment competition for fewer jobs on lower capital. 

Instead, the winning move would be to end all subsidy for the poor and end minimum wage laws. Subsidy to the working poor ends up being a subsidy to capitalists.

It is an unassailable fact of trade, that absent subsidy of workers in the form of welfare, wages would rise. No one would work at a loss (wages - living expenses). Market forces would force employers to pay more.

A wage is a price and conforms to the the Law of Prices. Even laborers get constrained by the great Axiom of Profit. 

All laborers also are capitalists as labor is the poor man's capital. Labor is the sale of work through time.  

Labor without capital results in bare subsistence savagery. It is to capital alone that profit can arise. 

Labor creates property. Capital creates property efficiently so profits might get earned. 

Profits whether realized or expected are the source of all prices. 

Piketty is clueless. Piketty doesn't understand reality. Piketty lives by irreality forged from indoctrination.

After the fall of the Berlin wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, all believed the idiocy of socialism at long last had died. Yet, campus Marxists are like cockroaches. You can't kill them. And the lie in wait for times to spread their diseases into the minds of the young and desperate.

For a look at Piketty and the numbers, check out UT OH, SOMEONE BETTER TELL THOMAS PIKETTY ABOUT L >G TOO.


For even more, read THOMAS PIKETTY, REVIVALIST PREACHER OF BORN-AGAIN SOCIALISM. THE SECOND GREAT AWAKENING OF SOCIALISM HAS COME TO AMERICA

Read more ...

THE UNREALITY OF SAVINGS, INCOME INEQUALITY AND ECONOMICS

Recently, I came across an interesting piece about academic Michael Pettis, which exposed Pettis' false beliefs about savings and income inequality. Pettis spews gobbly-gook. There is no such thing as savings. There is no such thing as income inequality.

Savings is mere rhetoric. People don't put savings in a savings bank or any other kind of bank. Depositors buy bank credits and sell cash, other bank credits or debt in property trades each known as a purchase and sale. 

In a purchase and sale, selling cash or perhaps other bank credits and buying an interest-bearing account, a bank customer becomes a capitalist who buys a share of future bank profits, which gets called interest. It's mere deceptive rhetoric to call such a capitalist "a saver" or one "who has savings" even when the bank customer capitalist is a wage earner. 

Depositors get deposits as evidence of their right of action against bankers when in a purchase and sale, selling their cash, other bank credits or debt. Bankers become owners of said cash, bank credits from other bankers and debt bought in a purchase and sale from depositors. 

Bankers and other capitalists deal in property with confidence in forthcoming profits, transmuting property that lacks saleability into property that does, enabling the adventurer-entrepreneur to transmute property as capital of production into property as wealth for trade. 

There is no such thing as "savings." There is only profit and loss. 

People work to get profits. People don't work and produce to make savings. To believe that people work for savings rather than profits is to reject reality. 

Anyone produces property in hopes of the gain of profit in a purchase and sale. Property always means the right of ownership and never what is owned. 

People trade property in stuff because before people can enjoy stuff, they must own it. People pursue profits to buy chattel, services and rights of action. Without profits there can be no purchase of another thing. Cash and bank credits are means to ends. 
  
Profits provide buying power because people seek buying power to buy the things they want from the surpluses they produce owing to efficiency. Otherwise, people would live at bare subsistence content to make little of a few things they need to survive. Under such a state, trade would not exist, nor would credit.  

People trade their property in chattel, services and rights of action (credit). People don't trade biens (goods) as the Physiocrats called them nor do they trade utilities as the Mill from Bentham utilitarians called them. 

Pettis errs again when he claims income inquality exists and is causal for anything. Income inquality does not exist and thus cannot be causal.

In THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INCOME INEQUALITY, I use Robert Downey, Jr., to reveal that truth. If someone earns more than another, that is so because those paying for the one earning more pay higher bids than those who pay others less. 

Comparing the wages between a brain surgeon and a fast-food drive-thru cashier is deceptive, false comparison.

In both BUT IT IS FOR INEQUALITY! AT WHAT POINT DO PEOPLE STOP EXPONENTIALLY DOUBLING DOWN ON STUPIDITY?, and SPREADING WEALTH, INCOME INEQUALITY AND OTHER MANURE, I reveal crony politics keeps people poor through minimun wage and welfare subsidy and how it is impossible to spread wealth. 

Whether as individuals or in tandem for a firm, people work to get profits. And to get those profits, people work to make property in surplus. 

In trade, all get governed by infrangible, inescapable law of trade, the Law of Prices. All get constrained by the Axiom of Profit. The Law of Prices holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer set the price. The Axiom of Profit holds the sum of sales must at least equal the cost of production, otherwise the producer goes to run.

For workers, profit gets measured by the difference of wages less living expenses. For firms, profits gets measured by the difference of sales less outlays. For a given productivity of property made at surplus, if living expenses and outlays rise faster than wages and outlays, profit falls.

If living expenses rise above wages, workers live at loss. If outlays rise above sales, firms operate at loss. 

Prices have been rising owing to reckless cash accretion and reckless cash accretion has arisen owing to quantitative easing. 

Since cash are bank credits circulating in perpetuity, with cash anyone only can pay taxes, buy goods or buy bank credits. Residual bank credits become reserve against more bank credits traded in a purchase and sale. 

When bank credits grow faster than output, prices rise. Individuals caught in such a profit squeeze cannot buy vacations in the Bahamas, music lessons, dinners eaten at upscale restaurants, tailored suits and so on.

In YOU LIVE AT THE MERCY OF A CLOWN-CAR DRIVEN BY MEN AND WOMEN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE, I reveal how those at the Federal Reserve continue to err because they believe in economics rather than trade. 

Pettis is quite wrong when he babbles that there can be excess thrift as well as insufficient thrift. That is akin to saying there can be degrees of prosperity. 

Pettis fails to understand what thrift means, conflating thrift with savings. In THE WEALTHY PEOPLE EFFECT AND WHAT IT TRULY SHOULD MEAN TO YOU, I explain the word thrift as a Middle English word from about 1300 meaning "thriving, prosperity" and comes from the Old Norse meaning the same. 

In prosperity, anyone who wants to work can find work. Profit abounds. Wages increase faster than living expenses. Sales increase faster than outlays. The creation of property grows at an increasing rate.

Pettis errs again when he quotes Eccles who spews silliness about distribution. 

The whole mythology of production and distribution comes from the Physiocrats and their effort to support false claims that only farmers and the land produces while all other classes are unproductive and thus should be the ones upon whom taxes should be borne.

It's no wonder why Pettis doesn't get reality. Pettis parrots much of what gets taught by academicians and their economics mythology. Academia economics mythology fails to comport to reality. 

Academia economics, regardless of neoclassical school, fails to deal with the phenomena of trade — property and profits. Instead, academia economics focuses upon utility and scarcity, both of which have nothing to do with commerce, which is also called trade.

Trade, which is the purchase and sale of property as wealth made from property put to production, which is capital, to produce property in surplus, is the only reality. 

Here are three more must-reads on Bizarro Theater to help you disabuse yourselves from the unreality of economics and income inequality:

1. GREEDY CAPITALIST COMPLAINS ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXPENSE AND QUITS HIS BUSINESS
2. WILE E. COYOTE, CAMPGROUND BUSINESSMAN SUPER GENIUS
3. LIVING IN THE AGE OF IDIOCRACY

Read more ...

WE WANT TO BE FREE. UKRAINIANS WANT WHAT IS RIGHT. FREEDOM.

I am the Ukrainian, the native of Kiev ... I want you to know why thousands of people all over my country are on the streets. 

There is only one reason. We want to be free from a dictatorship. We want to be free from the politicians who only work for themselves, who are ready to shoot, to beat, to injure people just for saving their money, just for saving their houses, just to save their power.

We are civilized people, but our government are barbarians. We want our courts not to be corrupted. 

We want to be free.

I know that maybe tomorrow we'll have no phone, no Internet connection and we will be alone here. And maybe policemen will murder us, one after another, when it will be dark here.

We have this freedom in our hearts. We have this freedom in our minds.

Two maps reveal that Ukraine is two countries, not one and thus should break up. However why can't a break up happen in a civil way?

It's not so much about territory. It's about people. The political establishment hates losing people because they hate losing the ability to control property of others and thus the ability to scoop up taxes, which are an unearned share of profits taken by force if necessary.

As I explained in LAW VS JUSTICE. GOVERNMENT VS SOCIETY. POLITICS VS YOU, the only legit reason for government is to protect the individual and his property from a mob and to certify claims about property when in a society of property so that men can engage in trade, which is the purchase and sale of property, rather than war among each other.

Government evolves from society. However, society does not evolve from government. Before government there is society. Before society there are only individuals.

Society isn't built. Society is individuals as strangers merely who form a society of property for mutual benefit of trade, self-interest and self-expression. The only society in which strangers can live is a society of property. Government springs forth to enlarge the circle of strangers.

However, when government, the created creature, becomes the master over those who created it, the created, that is, those of government, imposes all kinds of evil upon the creator, the people in society of property.

The story of Ukrainians is the story everyone. It's the story of Catalonians who long to be free. The Ukrainian story is the story of Basques, the story of the Flemish, the Bretons in France, the story of many in Europe. Millions of people living in Europe want to be free from arbitrary borders imposed upon them from treaties imposed after world wars. 

The story of Ukainians also is the story of Americans whose federal government has become an uncontrollable monster of epic proportion.

Arguably, everyone of the world would be safer if everyone could assert his or her right of self-determination. With no countries of scale, it would be hard for massive armies to form. It is hard to see there could be a want to marshal resources into making weapons of mass-scale murder and destruction rather than the want to make property for trade.

Contrary to what most believe, the European Union needs to break up. European countries need to break up. The United Nations needs to disband. Even the USA needs to break up.

Commerce and merchant law needs to rule the earth over. 

No people can claim the crown of enlightenment, championing democracy if in their democracies, they force thousands and tens of thousands of people to live under their rule.

Watch the Ukrainian Civil War Live through YouTube.

Read more ...