Aggregatore di feed

Click here:

John Leake

The post The Washington Post’s Feeble Response to CDC Autism Update appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Brian Dunaway.

Ben Bartee

The post The ‘But Aluminum in Tea’ Vaxx Industry Lie, Debunked appeared first on LewRockwell.

The AI Bubble is a perfect example of why The Fed should not exist. Give human beings the ability to counterfeit money and their delusions of grandeur are going to follow. Economic laws become a relic of the past. The free will of every single person on earth is ignored as if it doesn’t exist. The receivers of The Fed’s counterfeit money believe that they will overcome it all, and reality will conform to their imaginations. End the Fed.

The post AI Spending: The Biggest Bubble Yet? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Bill Madden wrote:

Worth reading and thinking about.  Once they control our fiat currency and our spending, there’s no way to change back to a constitutional monetary system without a revolution.

Dave Ramsey repost:

HERE’S WHAT NO CASH ACTUALLY MEANS:

A cashless society means no cash. Zero. It doesn’t mean mostly cashless and you can still use a ‘wee bit of cash here & there’. Cashless means fully digital, fully traceable, fully controlled. I think those who support a cashless society aren’t fully aware of what they are asking for. A cashless society means:

* If you are struggling with your mortgage on a particular month, you can’t do an odd job to get you through.

* Your child can’t go & help the local farmer to earn a bit of summer cash.

* No more cash slipped into the hands of a child as a good luck charm or from their grandparent when going on holidays.

* No more money in birthday cards.

* No more piggy banks for your child to collect pocket money & to learn about the value of earning.

* No more cash for a rainy-day fund or for that something special you have been putting $20 a week away for.

* No more little jobs on the side because your wages barely cover the bills or put food on the table.

* No more charity collections.

* No more selling bits & pieces from your home that you no longer want/need for a bit of cash in return.

* No more cash gifts from relatives or loved ones.

What a cashless society does guarantee:

* Banks have full control of every single penny you own.

* Every transaction you make is recorded.

* All your movements & actions are traceable.

* Access to your money can be blocked at the click of a button when/if banks need ‘clarification’ from you which will take about 3 weeks, a thousand questions answered & five thousand passwords.

* You will have no choice but to declare & be taxed on every dollar in your possession.

* The government WILL decide what you can & cannot purchase.

* If your transactions are deemed in any way questionable, by those who create the questions, your money will be frozen, ‘for your own good’.

Forget about cash being dirty. Stop being so easily led. Cash has been around for a very, very, very long time & it gives you control over how you trade with the world. It gives you independence. I heard a story where a man supposedly contracted Covid because of a $20 bill he had handled. There is the same chance of Covid being on a card as being on cash. If you cannot see how utterly ridiculous this assumption is then there is little hope.

If you are a customer, pay with cash. If you are a shop owner, remove those ridiculous signs that ask people to pay by card. Cash is a legal tender, it is our right to pay with cash. Banks are making it increasingly difficult to lodge cash & that has nothing to do with a virus, nor has this ‘dirty money’ trend.

Please open your eyes. Please stop believing everything you are being told. Almost every single topic in today’s world is tainted with corruption & hidden agendas. Please stop telling me & others like me that we are what’s wrong with the world when you hail the most corrupt members of society as your heroes. Politics & greed is what is wrong with the world; not those who are trying to alert you to the reality in which you are blindly floating along whilst being immobilized by irrational fear. Fear created to keep you doing & believing in exactly what you are complacently doing.

Pay with cash & please say no to a cashless society while you still have the choice.

The post What Cash-less Really Means appeared first on LewRockwell.

Bill Madden wrote:

Like most printed and video communication, this discussion of our international oppression contains about five minutes of important information spread over a much longer time period.  My desire for more efficient utilization of the audience’s time is strictly from a marketing perspective.  The longer and/or more complex the communication, the fewer the number of people who will absorb it.  If you communicate to impress the other communicators, the less effective it will be with the people who need the information.

In essence, we ruled the world after WW II and Corporate America prospered.  But, prospering soon leads to exploitation and, like Iran in 1953, we were invited to leave Venezuela when Hugo Chavez became president.  We launched at least one coup against Chavez and, it is alleged, we provided the cancer that killed him.  We have attempted to starve the Venezuelans into revolution and regime change but that is not working so we are planning to invade Venezuela because of “drug trafficking” and/or “socialism”.  We tolerate drug trafficking from other countries like Mexico and socialism from countries without an abundance of natural resources but not from Venezuela.

We are a ship without a rudder.

The post ower Corrupts and Then Disintegrates appeared first on LewRockwell.

di Francesco Simoncelli

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/la-rivoluzione-di-satoshi-e-la-possibilita)

Quando ho contattato l'autrice del libro, La rivoluzione di Satoshi, e abbiamo iniziato una corrispondenza per email, è stato come fare il bagno in una vasca gelata: d'improvviso molte sfaccettature dell'ecosistema Bitcoin hanno preso una diversa forma. Ero interessato alla traduzione del libro proprio perché molte nuove consapevolezze erano esplose in me man mano che proseguivo nella lettura. Inutile dire che la volontà di condividere qualcosa con altri deriva sostanzialmente da ciò: la comprensione e l'inquadramento di un determinato fenomeno sotto un nuovo punto di vista, avvalorato e arricchito di una nuova dimensione di conoscenza. Infatti Bitcoin appare diverso a chiunque lo osservi, potremmo definirlo una moderna parabola dei ciechi e dell'elefante.

Agli economisti sembra una moneta di qualità inferiore, poiché non ha una risposta elastica dal lato dell'offerta. Agli occhi degli enti regolatori si tratta di un tentativo subdolo di riciclare denaro ed evadere le tasse. Per il grande pubblico sembra un'orribile creatura costituita da speculatori finanziari e tecno-chiacchieroni, e per questo motivo la maggior parte delle persone lo ignora.

Con La rivoluzione di Satoshi di Wendy McElroy le cose cambiano radicalmente. “Questo è stato uno dei miei progetti intellettuali più difficili e importanti che abbia completato”, mi ha detto l'autrice. È un libro calmo e serio, accessibile ai principianti curiosi e a coloro che non sono ancora convinti che Bitcoin sia una soluzione rapida a ogni problema sociale. Come direbbe qualcuno, tanto per aggiungere un po' di ironia al fenomeno, Bitcoin è “tutto ciò che non capite del denaro, combinato con tutto ciò che non capite dei computer”. Alcune spiegazioni tecniche sono inevitabili, ma il lettore non è soggetto a una valanga di tecnicismi incomprensibili, né a grida di protesta semplicistiche inserite solo per attirare l'attenzione, vendere una copia in più e non lasciare niente di costruttivo al lettore.

L'autrice lo ritiene apertamente un vantaggio per il mondo e questa confessione “partigiana” non dovrebbe sminuire le sue numerose argomentazioni. L'approccio di prendere in considerazione solo gli incentivi personali e scartare di conseguenza le idee è, nell migliore delle ipotesi, miope e, nella peggiore, stupido: “La critica di una presa di parte a priori è un errore di valutazione. Sostengo Bitcoin perché ci credo dopo anni di studio, pertanto le mie tesi reggono, o cadono, in base ai loro meriti”.

E di meriti ce ne sono in abbondanza. La McElroy non esagera, come molti bitcoiner sono soliti fare, ma contestualizza la sua argomentazione fin da subito: “Nonostante le speranze di molti irriducibili sostenitori del Bitcoin, esso non porrà fine alla guerra, non ripristinerà la famiglia tradizionale, né risanerà il mercato immobiliare. Non migliorerà la nutrizione, non ispirerà un ritorno all'arte rinascimentale, né farà rivivere l'architettura del XIX secolo. Bitcoin non risolve tutto; risolve alcuni problemi e ne distrugge persino altri”.

Ciò che molti credono di Bitcoin è vero: è per i criminali, ma è anche per chi combatte per la libertà, per coloro che sono tagliati fuori dal sistema monetario mondiale, per coloro che sono tenuti finanziariamente ostracizzati dalle leggi o dalle usanze dei loro Paesi, per i dissidenti russi o nigeriani che cercano di ricevere e spendere fondi, per le donne afghane sotto il regime patriarcale, per i rifugiati che cercano di attraversare un confine con i loro beni (finanziari) intatti, per gli occidentali che cercano di sfuggire alle peggiori conseguenze dell'inflazione, per i dispensari di marijuana negli Stati Uniti la cui attività è legale negli stati in cui operano ma illegale a livello federale (e quindi incapaci di utilizzare il sistema bancario che è sotto un pesante controllo centralizzato). In realtà tutti questi usi sono la stessa cosa: molte parti dello stesso elefante. La natura del denaro è quella di poter essere utilizzato tra nemici che altrimenti non potrebbero fidarsi, o costringersi a vicenda, a comportarsi bene (gli amici possono usare credito e favori, invece). È uno strumento al portatore che non richiede identificazione, un conto bancario, o il permesso di un sovrano.

“Bitcoin”, scrive l'autrice in modo efficace e conciso, “è capacità di dire di no”: un modo monetario per sottrarsi, per evitare ostacoli. Non c'è da stupirsi che piaccia anche ai criminali. Questo non è un libro ideologico che sostiene aprioristicamente Bitcoin o riflette sul “crollo” del dollaro; libri del genere esistono già, mentre invece la McElroy di creare qualcosa di più grande: non indaga se le cose che Bitcoin rompe valgano la pena di essere rotte, ma “se dovremmo preferire un mondo con Bitcoin a un mondo senza Bitcoin”. Lo fa con prudenza e scrupolosità, usando lo strumento filosofico del velo dell'ignoranza di John Rawls.

Supponendo che non sappiate chi siate, in quale Paese siate nati e quali siano le vostre competenze, i vostri interessi e le vostre opportunità (ovvero, se cercaste di privare i lettori dei loro privilegi monetari e finanziari), sosterreste ancora l'esistenza di Bitcoin?

Nell'ambito di questo velo, La rivoluzione di Satoshi, cerca di presentare argomentazioni il più possibile ineccepibili a favore di Bitcoin. Un tale esercizio oltre a essere ammirevole è anche prezioso. Non vedere un problema nella censura e nell'oppressione finanziaria equivale a credere che solo le Persone Cattive™ abbiano problemi con le autorità (benevolenti). In realtà “anche i buoni vengono spesso censurati”.

La rivoluzione di Satoshi vi invita a guardare più lontano nel tempo e più in generale in tutto il mondo: “Se poteste immaginare di trovarvi nella posizione di aver bisogno di una forma di denaro resistente alla censura, o di dover insegnare a qualcun altro come usarlo, sarebbe saggio studiare Bitcoin”. Questa è la realtà per circa quattro miliardi di persone che vivono sotto il tacco di governanti autoritari che limitano, catturano, opprimono, o puniscono in altro modo i dissidenti per aver fatto, o detto, cose sbagliate. Bitcoin, come qualsiasi altra rivoluzione nella storia, non dissipa le leggi ingiuste, né fa sparire i governanti malvagi, ma niente può farlo; queste “ingiustizie” vivranno finché vivrà l'essere umano. L'uso di Bitcoin rende la spesa e il trasferimento di denaro molto più difficili da censurare per tali governanti.

Si tratta di un miglioramento evidente, un vantaggio per l'umanità. Bitcoin è denaro della libertà, una via di fuga dal pesante stivale di un tiranno. Dietro il velo, abbiamo alte probabilità di essere una di quelle persone. Questo libro alimenta le aspettative e di conseguenza stimola la creatività. La sola speranza di avere per le mani uno strumento di difesa efficace per qualsiasi situazione tirannica o di censura è di per sé uno strumento che permetterà a una pletora crescente di individui di organizzarsi diversamente. La sola esistenza, concreta, di questa possibilità è quanto basta per proiettare le persone nel futuro e, dapprima, far immaginare loro alternative, poi realizzarle. Ecco perché Bitcoin è speranza.

Gli economisti, tuttavia, ridurrebbero il tutto al seguente quadro di riferimento: ampliare il set decisionale e le opportunità disponibili non fa altro che avvantaggiare gli utenti (indipendenza da alternative irrilevanti). Più opzioni ci sono, meglio è. Date le diverse preferenze e circostanze individuali, la situazione mondiale con Bitcoin rappresenta un miglioramento per alcuni ed è quindi piuttosto banale concludere che per queste persone sia meglio avere accesso a Bitcoin piuttosto che non avercelo.

Un mondo con Bitcoin ha i suoi costi, però: ci sono casi di riciclaggio di denaro, ransomware e mancato pagamento delle tasse se qualcosa come Bitcoin non fosse mai stato inventato (beh, scoperto...). L'autrice ammette che tali fenomeni, nella misura in cui sono resi possibili da Bitcoin, sono negativi, ma che non rappresentano “una seria minaccia al beneficio netto complessivo di Bitcoin per il mondo”. In un certo senso, La rivoluzione di Satoshi, fa anche eco a Money and the Rule of Law di Pete Boettke: “Per quanto riguarda le istituzioni monetarie, Bitcoin porta lo stato di diritto nel mondo del denaro ed è un'alternativa attraente, perché apre alla possibilità di creare un consenso con cui dire ‘No’ soprattutto per i miliardi di persone che soffrono sotto pessimi governanti e con le tecnologie analogiche sono intrappolati in un loop terrificante da cui non ci sarebbe uscita”.

Inoltre la McElroy è piuttosto fiduciosa riguardo alle implicazioni di questa istituzione monetaria: “Bitcoin è un'istituzione monetaria che punta alla prevedibilità e alla disintermediazione sistematiche. Esiste non per perseguire la stabilità dei prezzi, o la piena occupazione, ma per eliminare del tutto la necessità di creatori di denaro centrali, mediatori e gestori”.

Abbiamo bisogno di libri seri su Bitcoin e sull'ecosistema che lo circonda, soprattutto dal punto di vista intellettuale, e La rivoluzione di Satoshi è proprio uno di questi.

Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una mancia in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.

The fall general assembly of the USCCB lumbered into session last week at the Marriott Waterfront in Baltimore, as they do each November. The ponderous livestream of bishops, all doing their best to be flavorless, was, to say the least, somnolent. There were approximately two minutes of interest on day two, when Bishop Strickland stood up to make an intervention. He was widely ignored, after which the porridge of officialdom moved on like a slow-moving river around a midstream boulder. It felt like they all found something of interest on the ceiling.

It is finally becoming apparent, even to the most hopeful, that no amount of begging, pleading, or shaming will cause the bishops to care about the laity and those things that are most important to us. If they’re confused as to what those things are, a good start would be to ask priests what they hear most in Confession. I guarantee it’s not offenses against climate change or synodality.

Our children are lost to virtue at an early age and misled by the hyper-sexualized agenda in their schools. The culture of death and depravity takes more trouble over them than the Church does. Where is the stout teaching of the theology of the body in schools and parishes? Where are the Christian heroes able to credibly witness to purity?

They’re not to be found in the Baltimore Marriott, and wouldn’t you think bishops might be a little ashamed of that?

Young adults are turning away from marriage and family. Contraception, abortion, sterile lifestyles, pornography, and misplaced priorities are seductively proposed to them, guaranteeing that they will never have the joy intended by God through the family. Might that be of some interest to the bishops?

So many people who left the Mass under the Reign of Fear in 2020 never returned. We still have a crisis of catechesis, with adults in the pews who have no idea what their Catholicism teaches. The obsessive persecution of the Traditional Latin Mass has driven some of our most committed and hard-working parishioners out of diocesan parishes. Tens of thousands of our African brothers have been kidnapped, tortured, and executed for the Faith.

Could the bishops be troubled to address any of that?

No, they spend themselves on immigration, climate change, and synodality. They waste their time and our money to address things that have no bearing on the lives of the laity or the health of our beloved Church.

When the bishops coyly use the term “immigrant” without specifying legal or illegal, they’re not talking about legal; otherwise, why obfuscate? According to a Harvard-Harris poll from June of this year, 80 percent of all Americans are in favor of the deportation of illegal aliens who commit crimes. As of this fall, about 1.6 million have self-deported, provided with free airfare, a cash bonus, and a chance to apply for legal reentry. Around another half million have been forcibly deported, many of whom are the worst of violent criminals and gang members. Some do not have U.S. criminal records (and the media and bishops will focus on that), but they have long records in their home countries.

No multiplication of pious words from the bishops can change the civil laws. The bishops pulling on the illegal side of the tug-of-war rope sends the message to young people that they need not follow laws they don’t like. That is no preparation for adulthood, but the bishops don’t have to try to raise children to be responsible citizens.

In a March Gallup poll of 16 key issues of concern to Americans, climate change didn’t make the worry list. Even Bill Gates has distanced himself from the climate melodrama. But the bishops will keep milking it until the udder shrivels up. Laudato Si’, you see.

And synodality? Please. You couldn’t find two people in the whole world who agree on what it is.

I don’t know anyone who thinks the bishops, as a body, are doing a great job. Or even a job. There are a few good ones who could actually be a force for Christ in their dioceses if they didn’t have to flap around like synchronized fan dancers for the bishops’ conference and the pope. Heaven forbid any apostle of Christ the King fail to blindly follow orders.

So the Coffee Circle took a whole lot of money to rent space at the Waterfront Marriott—with, no doubt, a strong security force because the princes are afraid of their subjects—and wasted three days performing on subjects that are of little to no importance to those of us who (used to) throw our tithes into the basket.

Do I sound disrespectful? I’ll reserve my genuine respect for the one man who spoke up for a few of the things that are really troubling the faithful. The conversion of the ancient Church of Jesus Christ to the homosexual gospel concerns us. The deceptive portrayal of the illegal immigration crisis concerns us. The fearful and mechanical obedience of bishops to the episcopal tribe—rather than to Jesus and His Mystical Body—concerns us.

I refer you to Bishop Strickland’s intervention on day two, which was ignored by the Coffee Circle but not by the faithful. Thank you, Bishop Strickland, for knowing and caring about the real world in which we, the laity, live and work and try to raise our families for God. Note the disregard of the other bishops when Strickland exhorts them to take the homosexual revision of the Faith seriously.

Then see the postscript that Bishop Strickland posted Friday morning, beginning “Dear Faithful Catholics.” These are some of the most powerful words our lone shepherd has ever spoken:

“How long will you halt between two masters? If you believe Christ is Lord, then follow Him! If the world is your master, then go to it! But no longer profane His sanctuary while you betray the Cross!”

Bishops, STOP with the games! STOP with the lies. STOP turning a blind eye to the little ones! A massive stockpile of millstones is ready to be distributed among you. One for Pope Leo, a truckload for the Curia in the Vatican, and cargo ships full for the vast majority of today’s successors of the Apostles.

How dare I speak these words, how dare I judge these princes of the Church? No, brothers, HOW DARE YOU inflict harm on the little ones, over and over again??

… and then he gets fiery. Read the whole post here.

The discontent of the laity with their bishops continues, but the self-satisfied prelates either don’t notice or don’t care. This cannot continue indefinitely. If the bishops are determined to lead the Church down a path the laity can’t, in good conscience, follow, what will be the outcome? I pray the Lord defends His sheep.

Jesus, we trust in You. Maranatha!

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post US Coffee Circle of Bishops Meets in Baltimore appeared first on LewRockwell.

I’ve long thought that Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address,” which he delivered on November 19, 1863, may be the most succinct and elegant speech ever written. I invariably think about it whenever I’m at a wedding or some other formal occasion and hear a windbag droning on for over five minutes with no structure, theme, or resolution.

Lincoln’s speech is a 272-word masterpiece that he delivered in less than two minutes. It reminds me of Churchill’s remark (if I remember it correctly): “If you want me to give a five-minute speech, I need a week to prepare. If you want me to give a two-hour speech, I can start right now.”

The occasion was the formal dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery, now known as Gettysburg National Cemetery, on the field where the Battle of Gettysburg was fought four months earlier, between July 1 and July 3, 1863, in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. It was considered a Union victory because Union soldiers repelled the Confederate army and sent it packing, thereby ending General Lee’s northern offensive.

The battle was the Civil War’s bloodiest, resulting in more than 50,000 Confederate and Union army casualties. 3,155 Union soldiers were killed; 3,903 Confederate soldiers died. Tens of thousands of others suffered horrible injuries that required limb amputations.

My great, great grandfather, William Reid Wilson, was a surgeon in the Confederate army, and he kept a diary in which he described performing amputations for hours on end after big battles. It was a gruesome and harrowing job, and in one memorable passage he described a field tent filled with horribly wounded and shrieking men as resembling “one of the lower circles of hell depicted in Dante’s Inferno.”

Dedicating the cemetery was as weighty as it gets, and President Lincoln came prepared.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The opening paragraph emphasizes the idea of birth with the words “brought forth” and “conceived,” with this birth being dedicated to an ideal.

The second paragraph emphasizes that the life that was brought forth is imperiled by civil war and may not survive.

The third paragraph exhorts the living to dedicate themselves to the great task of preserving our government of the people, by the people, for the people so that it shall not perish.

During the last five years, I’ve often thought about Lincoln’s speech and wondered to what our U.S. government is now dedicated.

If President Lincoln and Generals Grant and Lee were transported in time to Washington D.C. today, what would they think about the proceedings of our government?

I dare say they wouldn’t believe their eyes, but would think that what they are seeing is an impossibly vulgar and appalling joke.

Lincoln and Grant would doubtless wonder if what they’d fought for had indeed survived. Lee would feel vindicated for his decision to fight on the side of Secessionists.

With the exception of Thomas Massie and a few other brave souls, our U.S. government now seems entirely dedicated to enriching, aggrandizing, and protecting its rich and corrupt friends.

The Roman lawyer and statesman Cicero is said to have joked that “Rome is made of marble but built on a sewer.” I dare say the U.S. government is a sewer.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post To What is the U.S. Government Dedicated? appeared first on LewRockwell.

If you haven’t read it, go online and check out the late, great Dave McGowan’s expose of international child sex trafficking, “The Pedophocracy.” It’s shocking, and exposes our corrupt elite as being the worst kind of sexual deviants. There has been a tragic but undeniable market for children as sex objects, since at least Victorian England.

When we talk about the enigmatic sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, however, it’s not really pedophilia that’s involved. Attraction to teenagers is clinically referred to as Ephebophilia. But ‘Murricans have never been noted for getting their terms right, so to the world Epstein is a pedophile. To begin to unravel this mystery, we need to look at Jeffrey Epstein himself. We are told that Epstein was born into a blue-collar family. His father was allegedly a groundskeeper. If you’ve ever heard of another Epstein who was a groundskeeper, let me know who that was. Epstein dropped out of college, just like me. Unlike me, and anyone else in the free world without a college degree, he nevertheless was allowed to teach math at an elite New York City private school, run by the father of future Bush crime family loyalist and Trump Attorney General William Barr. From there, he entered the world of finance. High finance. Well, don’t all college dropouts do that? Do we sense some missing connections there?

We are told that this son of perhaps one of the world’s only Jewish groundskeepers, after getting a teaching job which requires a college degree for mere mortals, went on to become a “financial advisor to billionaires.” Well, if you were a billionaire, wouldn’t you be looking to entrust your fortune in the hands of a college dropout? Does this make any sense at all? So the official narrative here, like all official narratives, is completely illogical. I think it far more likely that Epstein began his blackmailing career on behalf of the Mossad, perhaps before he even became a math teacher, hired by his fellow non-Irishman Donald Barr. But how did he get into a position to blackmail famous politicians and celebrities? There are a lot of unscrupulous, struggling Americans that would like to figure out how to get into the blackmailing the famous business. Who provided Epstein with all those underage girls, without whom no blackmailing could have taken place?

It seems obvious that it must have been powerful Israelis who took an interest in their shockingly unsuccessful fellow non-Irishman. First and foremost among these was former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who is known to have visited and slept over at Epstein’s home many times. Talk about an odd couple! Do prime ministers normally consort with the sons of groundskeepers? College dropouts? What did they have in common? Epstein was close to Peter Thiel, of Palantier infamy. Thiel, as yet another non-Irish success story, was a former director of Israeli signals intelligence, whatever that is. As a member in good standing of the Uniparty, Epstein was friends with both Steve Bannon and Noam Chomsky, who called him his “highly valued friend.” Keep in mind, Epstein had already been arrested for sex crimes, and then partnered with Barak to start a security tech business. Leaders of nations are well known for partnering with college dropouts who’ve been charged with sex crimes.

It is against this background with all the inexplicable pieces missing, that we should consider the Epstein story. Once Donald Trump, and his oldest son, were adamant about releasing all of the Epstein information. Then suddenly the wildly off kilter president was dead set against it, pressuring all the RINOs in the Stupid Party to vote against making them public. Attorney General Pam Bondi went from having the files on her desk to proclaiming that the files didn’t exist. Bondi may be traumatized herself. There’s a photo out there, of an alluring, very young blonde, dancing with Donald Trump, who does look like she could have been the underage future attorney general. One rumor has it that Bondi told Trump his name was “all over the files.” Well, if she was perhaps one of the Lolitas involved in the blackmail scheme, wouldn’t she know that already? Do we really have any confidence in a near senior citizen still playing a bimbo, and wide-eyed FBI director Kash Patel? Patel and his aide Dan Bongino both made asses of themselves by declaring that Epstein killed himself.

The Democrats, to a man/woman/they/them, are all in favor of releasing the Epstein information. This is decidedly out of character for today’s “Woke” Democrats, whose every impulse has historically been to conceal information from the public. And now Trump orders his aging blonde attorney general to look into the connections between Bill Clinton and other prominent Democrats. But no Republicans. The Democrats, meanwhile, only care about Trump’s connection to Epstein. Something tells me that Oprah, and celebrities from Woody Allen to Jimmy Kimmel, will never be prosecuted. If, indeed, they are really on the “list.” If there is a list. Can you imagine both Clinton and Trump, striding alongside each other in matching orange jumpsuits? The Giant Orange Man would look especially fetching. Or all those Hollywood figures being grilled on the stand, confronted with the presumed evidence of flying on the Lolita Express, and visiting Lolita Island? That alone could bring down the Deep State.

Of course, before any of you exclaim, “There you go again, Mr. Fancy Pants populist, with your ridiculous faith in the People.” Yeah, I realize they would never let this kind of disclosure be made public. All of the favorite celebrities of the proud eligible voters, caught with their hands in an underage cookie jar. But I can dream, can’t I? They’re making an issue of Epstein for some reason. Will they be able to convince the public that Donald Trump was the only name on Epstein’s list? That he was actually partners with Epstein, just like Ehud Barak? Trump probably knew a lot of rich perverts. Will this then be the end of Trumpenstein? To wind up this political project by having him led, kicking and screaming, from the White House? Maybe they’ll pull down his pants, and let those with TDS become orgasmic at the sight of his micro-penis. After all, it just has to be tiny. South Park wouldn’t lie to us.

We are told that this college dropout, arrested twice for sex crimes, became involved in setting up negotiations between Barak and Vladimir Putin, which included a CIA- style proposal to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. I’m guessing he brought along lots of pretty nymphets to assist him. No son of a Jewish groundskeeper is complete without them. And then, finally we’re asked to believe that Epstein killed himself, while the guards were sleeping and/or surfing the internet. No one accepts this nonsense, outside of high ranking officials in the U.S. government. Now, juicy emails from Epstein are being released. Good timing. In one, it is suggested the Trump got down on his knees and serviced Bill Clinton. Just like Monica Lewinsky. Now, do we really think that the story would have ever been reported otherwise- Clinton and Trump with their roles reversed? Trump just couldn’t have been the top there. Bill Clinton wasn’t about to go to town on that micro-penis.

I don’t believe Trump and Clinton ever had a sexual encounter with each other. Although, there is that bizarre painting of Slick Willie in a dress. Epstein is supposed to have been so fond of it that law enforcement found it hanging in his townhouse. Why are the Epstein victims suddenly being respected by the odious state controlled media? This includes the late Virginia Giuffre, who was almost certainly murdered, and was universally ignored outside of the conspiracy world. Until now. The congressional hearings should be interesting. Assuming they ever happen. Phony partisan politics at its worst. Democrats desperately trying to implicate Trump and Trump only. Republicans desperately trying to implicate anyone other than Trump. I hope someone speaks up for all those young guys sitting in prison for statutory rape. She looked older. Had a fake ID. Doesn’t matter. I don’t think any of them conspired to traffic anyone. Just had sex with their underage girlfriend.

There was the June 29, 1989 Washington Times front page which read: “Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan Bush.” Underneath it was announced, “‘Call boys’ took midnight tour of White House.” That all sounds pretty normal, right? After a few unnatural deaths, the story went quickly away. Rep. Barney Frank, who literally ran a gay brothel out of his D.C. home, went on to be reelected many more times. I covered this, and other sordid scandals like it, in my book Hidden History. These diabolical One Percenters like the little boys as much as the little girls. Pizzagate has been “debunked,” right? Actually, no it hasn’t. I don’t care if Alex Jones issued a forced apology. Those Instagram photos were really disturbing. Who duct tapes a four year old girl to a table and takes a picture? Who captions a frightening empty room with metal walls “kill room?” Why did Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta have a painting depicting cannibalism in his office? Why did his brother Tony have drawings of naked kids with red bottoms hanging in his home?

All those Podesta emails, which were leaked by the exiled Julian Assange, with far too many references to “pizza” and “pasta.” What’s the innocent explanation for saying, “I think you left a pizza-related map here?” Or talking about having pizza for “a couple of hours?” Supposedly, “pizza” and “pasta” are codewords in the sexual underground for girls and boys. Barack Obama had an email where he talked a bit too enthusiastically about “hot dogs” as well. We can guess what that’s code for, and Larry Sinclair probably wouldn’t be surprised. This is the darkest part of the corruption that I have investigated. But it’s unfortunately true. Our leaders do seem to choose, when they have the option, children as sexual partners. Now, this may not be entirely for sexual gratification. Apparently, something called adrenochrome is released from children when they are absolutely terrified. This perhaps explains snuff films. And it allegedly has the side effect that produces the very crowded “black eye” club.

This is dangerous territory. The private investigator working with state senator John DeCamp on exposing the Franklin Credit scandal in Nebraska, Gary Caradori, was killed along with his eight year old son in a small plane crash. His papers, including incriminating photos of famous figures in compromising positions, were never found. One of the young boys who was victimized by the abuse would die in a hospital waiting room of unknown causes, with a copy of DeCamp’s book in hand. Now that’s staging. Nancy Schaefer, one of the most vocal critics of the putrid Child Protective Services, which has been linked to child sex trafficking itself, was murdered along with her husband. Cathy O’Brien was an outspoken survivor of child sex trafficking, who once appeared on my podcast. She told a horrifying story of being hunted like animals by elitists including the recently departed, beloved Dick Cheney, in a demented version of “The Most Dangerous Game.”

So how likely, given this kind of hidden history that I’ve barely scratched the surface of, are we to get the truth about what happened to Virginia Giuffre and others on Lolita Island, which allegedly included guests like Bill Gates, Prince Andrew, and so many others who have lifelong “stay out of jail free” cards? I am perplexed that this story has received the mainstream coverage it has. There is no non-conspiratorial way to cover it, is there? We know that Epstein had cameras and surveillance video everyone on the island. This footage was probably part of what was discovered during an FBI search of the safe at his New York estate, which subsequently “disappeared.” Will either Clinton or Trump go down? Bill Gates? Any of those Hollywood figures? Maybe they’ll find a secret cabal of “White Supremacists” who were actually controlling poor college dropout Epstein. No way is Israel’s Mossad going to be reported as paying Epstein to blackmail all these public figures.

Read the Whole Article

The post Jeffrey Epstein and the Pedophocracy appeared first on LewRockwell.

“The Soviet Union and something called communism per se had not been the object of Washington’s global attacks. There had never been an International Communist Conspiracy. The enemy was, and remains, any government or movement, or even individual, that stands in the way of the expansion of the American Empire; by whatever name the US gives to the enemy – communist, rogue state, drug trafficker, terrorist.”

~ William Blum

The real enemy of every American citizen (and all others) is the ruling master class (often referred to as the “Deep State”) and all its political pawns and enforcers in the U.S. government. The planted (selected) head pawn at this time is the evil narcissist Trump, but the next puppet will likely be even worse, if one can imagine that, because that is what history tells us. The U.S. is currently the most brutal empire that has ever existed, if one considers all those hundreds of millions harmed, slaughtered, and murdered in war, through regime change, through military aggression, due to economic interference and tariffs, due to sanctions, due to fully funded proxy wars and genocide, and due to attempted control of most every country on earth.

As far as American citizens are concerned, they are horribly abused at the hands of government in multiple ways, not the least of which is the fact that there are more arbitrary laws, regulations, restrictions, debt, theft, and incarceration for victimless ‘crimes’ than anywhere else on earth. For some time now, this country’s residents have been in a physical and psychological hell. In addition to all this, the intense tyranny these past 6 years has been beyond insane.

Regardless of how bad it gets before this empire implodes and fails, which will likely be sooner rather than later, the blame for the downfall of this heinous empirical experiment will be levied against some claimed ‘enemy’ state, and that will be a lie. It is not China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran that should be feared, it is this State and its government, the same State that most voluntarily accept and worship. This means that fault also rests with all in this country who support this governing monster, and who stand by without resistance to this totalitarian system of evil.

Many will think this assessment harsh, because many will never seek the truth, nor will they take responsibility for their failure to secure their own freedom. You see, as far as I can tell, this is the nature of the humanoid creature called man. While it seems that this could be a learned behavior, based on gullibility, indoctrination, and propaganda, I do not accept that excuse. I consider this to be weakness, cowardice, indifference, or dependency, or whatever other term can be used to describe it, but it is a pathetic flaw and therefore not a legitimate excuse for failure. In the end, it is not the fault of any master willingly allowed to rule, but falls on the shoulders of those voluntarily accepting their own enslavement.

I should mention once again that government actually does not control anything, as the politicians in government are but pawns of the real power. However, government is the most vital connection to the people, and without that middleman position, the real ruling class could not achieve power at all. Therefore, by eliminating government and making impotent the political class, actual progress toward a free society would become possible, albeit that the plebiscites did not demand just another government with different people, which is what has been the case since the beginning.

Over the past 100 years or so, the masses have accepted tax on income, a huge controlling central banking system, WWI, the State-created depression, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, complete economic chaos, the Gulf war, the 9/11 inside job hoax and false flag, the War of Terror, torture, the Patriot Act, blanket surveillance, the housing crash and bank bailouts, the fake ‘covid pandemic,’ poisonous injections called ‘vaccines, lockdowns, the American taxpayer funded Zionist Israeli genocide, globalism, and now digital ID and the digital takeover of all. This of course, is a very short list, but apparently “the people” never learn anything from being the cattle herded by their chosen masters into the cages of tyranny to await slaughter.

All empires fail, but with that fall will come much pain and suffering. All of us are now in the position of awaiting a digital prison, where some will be allowed to participate at times, and others not at all. Tracked, traced, and fully programmed, so that all activity, movement, finance, personal information, and life itself will be controlled by the coming technocratic State. This will require that all property and assets be confiscated, tokenized, and used to enrich the rich even more, as the great taking comes to fruition. The control grid once this digitization takes place, will be all consuming and completely inescapable by the lowly masses. That means all of you.

In today’s world, the mass majority, which is a super majority, do not care whatsoever about their own freedom and liberty. They go along to get along, never understanding that they are committing financial and personal suicide. But fear not, as many will be forcibly suicided soon enough, when the depopulation agenda goes into high gear. It has already begun and few understand this paradigm, but with time, it will accelerate greatly, and without apology. Open culling will be deemed necessary by the State; which could then lead to a land similar to that of Soylent Green.

Remember, once you are inside of and consumed by Digital ID and the digitally-controlled State, it will be too late to escape. Any remedy has to occur before that time, but the only viable solution is for a large minority to completely abandon the State. that means ignoring it, mass disobedience, and dissent, especially concerning digitized currency, which will be programmable and financially crippling to all, making total control a reality. At this point, this is without question in my mind. Honestly, I do not see large numbers of people deciding as individuals to abandon this heinous system of rule, and there is very little time left for that to be an option.

Why not destroy this empire now, and in fact, destroy any and every empirical system that ever again rears its gruesome head?

“Why do you accept being treated like an inmate?” “Power cannot survive when its subjects free themselves from fear.”

~ Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt — “Empire”

This article was originally published on GaryDBarnett.com.

The post The Real Enemy of the U.S. and the World Is the U.S. Empire: Not Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran appeared first on LewRockwell.

Like a bad Italian opera, the fat lady is singing from a balcony overlooking a city that is ablaze. Zaporhyzhia, Dneipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Kherson, Kharkiv, Sumy… The Russian ground forces are attacking in all of these locations, which represents about 1,000 miles of territory stretching from Sumy in the north to Zaporhyzhia in the south. Russia is inflicting an average of 1,335 casualties a day on the Ukrainian forces, which translates into 456,695 losses in 2025 as of November 17. That is almost 40,000 per month. Add to that an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 desertions each month… That means Ukraine must recruit a minimum of 60,000 new conscripts each month just to maintain its current troop strength. That ain’t happening (see chart above).

The recruitment figures cited by the Atlantic Council and the Institute for the Study of War, which represent partisan pro-Ukrainian sites, reinforce the dire state of the Ukrainian forces. When your very best friends are telling you that you are 50% short, you know things are grim.

Meanwhile, back in Kiev, Zelensky ain’t home. He’s scampering about Europe pleading for more money, but the Europeans are focused intently on the brewing corruption scandals haunting the Z-man. There is not a lot of enthusiasm for sending billions of dollars more to Ukraine as key officials in Zelensky’s government seek sanctuary in Israel (i.e., you don’t get extradited from Israel if you’re Jewish, even if major criminal charges hand over your head).

There are rumors in Moscow that the diplomatic dance with Washington is heating up, but I think that is just wishful thinking on the part of some in Washington. Trump’s failure to deliver on peace, coupled with his bombastic, threatening rhetoric towards Venezuela, Iran and Russia, is losing him support and fracturing his MAGA base.

This article was originally published on Sonar21.

The post Ukraine’s Days Are Numbered appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: Doug, you recently visited Azerbaijan—a country most people have never heard of, let alone could find on a map.

You’ve spent decades exploring some of the world’s least understood regions. What brought you to Azerbaijan, and how does it compare with other obscure countries you’ve visited for potential opportunity?

Doug Casey: I gave up sport traveling years ago. That’s because the world has become quite homogenized. Tons of bucket-listing tourists everywhere, wearing the same clothing, maintained by the same ubiquitous food and hospitality franchises. There’s not much point in pretending to be Richard Burton anymore.

That said, some friends—mostly Germans—who belong to ETIC, the Extreme Travelers International Congress, still enjoy travel camaraderie, and retro-rocking off the beaten path. I don’t know what the future holds for my friends at ETIC, since there are fewer and fewer extreme places in the world. But on the other hand, I expect over the next five or 10 years we’re going to have lots more war zones.

They decided to revisit Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, inviting Matt Smith and I along.

ETIC was founded by my friend Kolja Spöri, an ex-Formula One exec. There were ten of us, and everyone had been to over a hundred countries as a bare minimum. To give you a better flavor of the company, one of them had run a marathon on each of the seven continents on seven consecutive days, an unusual world record. No cubicle dwellers here.

The long war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, mostly over a disputed enclave called Nagorno-Karabakh, had been ongoing since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. It finally ended about eighteen months ago. The Extreme Travelers are fairly familiar with desolation, and usually it’s hard to beat a recent war zone in that department. But, as I’ll explain, the place was a huge surprise.

We spent a few days in Baku, the capital. Incidentally, the first commercial production of oil in the world was here, not in Pennsylvania, as most Americans think. You’ve probably seen this famous picture of Baku 150 years ago, with several hundred primitive oil wells spraying oil everywhere. No longer. Azerbaijan is still a big producer of petroleum, providing 70% of the national income. But things are now neat, clean, and modern.

After a few days there, we drove hundreds of miles all around Nagorno-Karabakh, which has recently been reclaimed by the Azerbaijanis. About 100,000 Armenians left everything but what they could carry and exited en masse. There are some hard feelings. Not to mention some tens of thousands of war dead. The Azeri army detonated an Armenian anti-tank mine for us in a field they were clearing.

International Man: Azerbaijan sits on a geopolitical fault line at the crossroads of Russia, Iran, and Turkey—and recently played a crucial role for Israel during its 12-day war with Iran.

From your visit, what insights did you gain about where this region is headed and what may lie ahead on this volatile frontier?

Doug Casey: Azerbaijan has ten million people. Like the Iranians, they’re Shia Muslims, but religion doesn’t seem prominent here. No muezzins on loudspeaker, no burqas or hijabs. Oddly—I’d say opportunistically—they’re aligned with Israel, and allowed themselves to be used as a flyover for the recent US–Israeli attack on the Iranians. Strange, in that there are about twenty million Azeris across the border in Iran. Incidentally, Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, is half Azeri.

Central Asia, like the Near East, is chronically unstable—a crossroads of every religious, ethnic, and linguistic group, with periodic bloody conquests. Old resentments seem to linger forever.

I got an email from a subscriber—an American of Armenian descent—who urged me not to go. He said I’d be propagandized and assured me that the Azeris were very, very bad people. And after getting to know a number of Azerbaijanis, I was assured by several that the Armenians were very, very bad people. That doesn’t augur well for the peace treaty that Trump claims to have brokered in the area. The Azeris are basically Turks, and the well-known holocaust of the Armenians and Greeks by the Turks is well remembered.

The chances of naïve busybody Americans creating peace on the other side of the world are less than zero. They’ll find they’ve just made more enemies while bankrupting themselves. They never learn. Fuhgedaboudit.

International Man: The US recently brokered a peace deal between historical enemies Armenia and Azerbaijan. As part of the deal, Armenia will lease the so-called ‘Trump Corridor’ (officially the Zangezur Corridor)—effectively inserting the US into the strategic space between Iran and Russia.

How do you interpret this move in the broader geopolitical chessboard?

Doug Casey: Further proof that, after hydrogen, stupidity is the most common thing in the universe. Wherever the US inserts itself anywhere in the world, it inevitably makes things worse—picking sides, shipping weapons and money around, enabling more warfare. Trump may have put a Band-Aid on the unpleasantness between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but rest assured it’s at great cost in dollars and threats from the US government.

This got me thinking more about Trump. He thinks he’s America’s answer to Louis XIV, who said “L’etat c’est moi” (I am the State). But I’ll lay odds he won’t finish his term; he’ll turn out to be Louis XVI.

International Man: You noted how pervasive the propaganda in Azerbaijan was—yet how familiar it felt compared to what we experience in the West.

What did you mean by that?

Doug Casey: It’s a huge mistake to believe almost anything that you hear or read in the media. A lot of the news is pure propaganda. It’s devoid of any critical thinking or historical background. Media types create “factoids”—an idiotic CNN-created neologism that most people think means something like “a fun little fact”. It doesn’t. A “factoid” relates to a “fact” the way an “android” does to a human, or an “asteroid” does to a star—deceptively similar, but quite different. The subtle manipulation of words is the best way to lie to intelligent people. Sorry for the tangent… but I mostly listen to the news not to find out what’s supposedly happening, but to see what other people are supposed to be thinking.

International Man: Given what you witnessed firsthand in Azerbaijan, what do you see as the broader investment implications?

Doug Casey: Since the 15 Soviet republics broke up in 1991, Azerbaijan has been run by the Aliyev family, first the father, now the son. Hereditary dynasties normally augur badly. But, then again, they may be better than so-called democracies, which are the current fashion.

The Aliyev government rates very low in the assessment by places like Freedom House and the Heritage Institute for things like personal freedom and economic opportunity. It’s not Switzerland or Cayman, but it’s stable, prosperous, and improving. I think it’s an underrated place.

Amazingly, Baku has Ferrari, Bugatti, and Lamborghini dealerships. It also has some of the heaviest traffic jams you’re likely to see this side of Bangkok. It seems like none of the cars are more than five years old, and they’re all in good condition. So the money is being widely distributed, and I saw no signs of unrest or unhappiness. The place is hard to tell from Denver, except that it’s safer.

And while the US sinks into bankruptcy, degeneracy, and corruption, Azerbaijan is providing a counter-example. At least when it comes to public works, like roads. We drove hundreds of miles, all around the country, at high speed.

The US spends $250 billion per year repairing its roads. It takes forever, and we mainly get crews standing around forever just to fix potholes. It seems like a giant grift. Matt Smith’s description is quite accurate:

“By far, the most impressive thing I saw during our visit was the level of construction occurring in the country… the scale of which is almost beyond imagination. … occasionally I could glimpse below in the valley a brand-new highway system which included dozens of tunnels. Now this is probably the most difficult terrain possible to do major construction.

“And yet what I glimpsed from above was shocking in scale. … along the roads that we traveled, there were endless streams of heavy equipment, hard at work, reshaping the landscape to expand the highway system we were on. There were cement factories everywhere built bespoke to support this ambitious effort.

“The scale was so massive, so inorganic, and so out of place, we had a hard time making sense of it. To do something like this in America would be utterly impossible. It would cost trillions of dollars. The thinking required, too big, the manpower, unavailable, the will, long gone. … seeing this scale of construction, the costs I imagined seemed utterly impossible. And so, at my earliest opportunity, I did some research. What I found was shocking.

Azerbaijan has built 4,000 kilometers of highway, 45 tunnels, including the second longest in the world, 447 bridges, 16 viaducts. Much of this over very, very difficult terrain. The project is mostly complete. And the total project time was less than five years. All this they’re doing for approximately $5 billion.

To put that in perspective, on March 26, 2024, the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore was damaged when a container ship collided into it. As of today, the bridge stands unusable. No repair work has yet started. The estimated cost for reconstruction of that bridge is between $1.7 billion and $1.9 billion. And when will it be done? It hasn’t even started yet. The current target completion date is October 2028.

So, in four and a half years, and for about $2 billion, we get an old and important bridge replaced in one of America’s cities. And in Azerbaijan, for $5 billion, they get 447 bridges, 4,000 kilometers of highways, dozens of tunnels including the second longest tunnel in the world. All in less than five years.”

On the long trip back to Buenos Aires (3 hours Baku to Istanbul, and 13.5 more to BA via Sao Paulo), we stopped off in Istanbul for a couple of days. It’s one of the world’s great cities, and one of my favorites. I think you’ll like the video podcast Matt and I did from there (link).

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post ‘Trump Corridor’ and the Future of Global Power appeared first on LewRockwell.

No no everything’s fine. It’s perfectly normal for people to have 80 hour work weeks while billionaires transform into trillionaires and tech plutocrats feed all our drinking water to AI servers as the planet dies. This is the only system that could possibly work.

No no it’s great. If you can’t afford a house it’s because you’re lazy and entitled. Stop eating fancy fruits and vegetables and sleep in your cubicle. One time I saw a homeless person with a phone. Sell your phone and use the money buy a house, you idiot.

What do you mean you want taxes to go toward infrastructure and basic social safety nets? That money is for the arms industry, and for Israel. If you want a high-speed rail system, build it yourself.

If you’re sad about being poor, ask your parents to loan you a few million dollars so you can invest it and become wealthy. There’s a veritable smorgasbord of exciting new opportunities on the horizon.

There’s still time to get in on the ground floor of the upcoming sexbot industry, for example, or the militarized police robot industry.

Create a line of children’s toys with functions you can activate through a small monthly fee with flexible tiered payment options.

See if you can design a highly addictive social media platform that feeds people’s information directly to CIA headquarters.

Invent an AI system that automatically freezes people’s digital money if they try to start a union.

Make a new gig economy app that helps poor people sell and deliver their organs to rich people.

Or what about a boat that sinks if you let your Remain Buoyant subscription lapse?

They say there are giant continents of plastic forming in the Pacific Ocean. You could rent out apartments on those.

Cult leaders are generally good at extracting wealth from their followers. You could probably make a chatbot that does that.

Elon Musk is working on those Neuralink implants to connect human brains to computers. You could set up a company that beams advertisements directly into people’s heads.

Speaking of advertisements, how has nobody thought of drones with megaphones blaring commercials at pedestrians yet? That’s a multibillion-dollar industry right there. They should fill the air in every major city on earth.

Capitalism is the best it’s ever been, is my point. There has never been a more exciting time to be an industrious young mind with a dream in your heart and a roll of nickels in your pocket.

So quit your whining, commie.

_________________

Check out my new book, Faces Of The Empire: The Battle For Humanity’s Soul.

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post Capitalism Is the Best It’s Ever Been! appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Trump’s alliance with Israel is giving us Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun as  Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism.  The Special Envoy’s job is to suppress free speech if it involves criticism of any Israeli policy, including the ongoing genocide of Palestine and its remaining people.  Probably it will be considered anti-semitism to criticize the Trump regime for enabling with money, weapons, and diplomatic protection the genocide.

A Special Envoy is said to be needed because of rising anti-semitism in America provoked by the Israeli genocide of Palestine.  The genocide caused Charlie Kirk to break from Israel, and it is this break that likely resulted in Kirk’s assassination.

Rabbi Kaploun dressed it all up as a defense of free speech.  He says he is going to combat growing anti-semitism not by cancelling the First Amendment but by teaching history, by which he means history concocted by Zionists.  It is this “history” such as the holocaust and God’s gift of Palestine to Jews that it will be an offense to challenge.

As we experience Israel’s growing power over America, a question arises:  Is the Camp of the Saints so bad after all?  Would Americans prefer to be dominated by Israel or by Muslim refugees from America’s 21st century wars for Israel against Muslims.  Allegedly, Muslims are terrorists, but we have seen the Zionist terrorism in Gaza and the West Bank and in the Israeli assassinations of Iranians and Lebanese.  Zionist hatred of even the gentiles who are Israel’s protectors is a suspected cause of attacks on Christianity and of the use of pornography to destroy sexual morality. 

The Special Envoy problem now before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, owned by Israel, is unrecognized by Republicans but is causing heartburn for Democrats.  The Democrats’ constituency includes the Muslim immigrant-invaders, some of whom now serve in Congress, as federal judges, and as mayors and city council members.  America’s transition to a Tower of Babel has gone so far that Israel’s ability to control what the Japanese call a “mongrel population” is questionable.  People of Color are a rival privileged ethnicity to Jews, and they are more numerous.  The likely consequence of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism will be more and worsening conflict between Democrats and Republicans.  It will be the Republican Jewish constituency against the Democrats People of Color constituency. 

The creation of a special envoy to protect Jewish ethnicity from criticism should raise the question why among all ethnicities it is Israelis that the US government elects to give special legal privileges that prevent anything to which Israel objects from being said?  This legal privilege contradicts the Constitution’s requirement of equal protection under law.  Why are Trump and the Senate Foreign Policy Committee violating the US Constitution for Israel?

Here is the Jerusalem Post’s take on the matter.

The post Why Are Americans Being Placed Under a Speech Tsar? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The situation in Ukraine is becoming even more complicate.

The war on the frontline is going bad for Ukraine as is the war on infrastructure deep behind the contact line.

A corruption scandal is used to neuter President Zelenski. New power structures are set to evolve to further the execution of the war. President Trump is attempting to impose another peace effort while Europe finds that it lacks the money to finance Ukraine and the war.

There are at least seven cities which are falling or are destined to fall within the next few month.

bigger

Kupyansk is largely under Russian control. During the last days Russian forces took some 25% of Siversk. Pokrovsk is to 95% in Russian hands. Fighting in its encircled sister city Mirnograd is slowly coming to an end. The road between Pokrovske and Guliaipole has been taken. The later city is thus cut off from its main supply line and will soon be encircled.

The Ukrainian command had thrown in all its reserves to prevent the taking of Prokovsk and Kupiyansk. It was to no avail.

All regular Ukrainian brigades lack infantry. The constant Russian drone attacks have also taken a large toll on the logistic elements of those units.

General Syrski, the Ukrainian commander in chief, had set his bet on newly developed assault units to allow for offensive action while neglecting the general brigades which have to hold the lines. The weakened lines broke down when the Russian infiltrate them. Assault units were sent in and wasted on counterattacks that were supposed to stop further Russian breakthroughs but failed to have significant effects.

Defense fortifications and buildings can no longer protect the soldiers. Each day Russia is using 200 or more glide bombs to demolish them. Drones and artillery strikes follow. Russian infantry sneaks in to mop up remaining resistance.

It is a fairly slow process but it works for the Russians and is causing them a minimum of casualties.

The war on infrastructure far behind the line of contact is also preceding at a high pace. Ukraine had rejected the ceasefire on infrastructure previously agreed to by President Trump and President Putin. It has continued attacks on Russian oil refineries and other energy facilities with drones and missiles. They have so far done too little damage to slow down the Russian economy.

Russia has responded to those strikes by launching thousands of drones and missile against Ukrainian electricity and heating facilities causing up to 18 hours of blackout per day even in large Ukrainian cities. Another Russian target are railway depots where locomotives are maintained. Hundreds of them have been destroyed in such strikes.

The lack of electricity and mass transport have all but stopped large scale production of industrial goods. The economy suffers. Tax income decreases.

The corruption scandal around Timor Mindich which is involving friends and cabinet members of President Zelinski government is widening. Each day the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) is leaking more details of the case though any real proof of the actual corruption is still missing.

NABU and the whole anti-corruption vertical is a direct control element of the U.S. embassy in Kiev. In a speech held three days before the war in Ukraine started President Putin of Russia described it as such:

There is no independent judiciary in Ukraine. The Kiev authorities, at the West’s demand, delegated the priority right to select members of the supreme judicial bodies, the Council of Justice and the High Qualifications Commission of Judges, to international organisations.

In addition, the United States directly controls the National Agency on Corruption Prevention, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the High Anti-Corruption Court. All this is done under the noble pretext of invigorating efforts against corruption. All right, but where are the results? Corruption is flourishing like never before.

The FBI has a liaison officer within NABU and is directly involved in the current corruption investigation.

As for results of corruption investigation there are none. After eleven years of existence the anti corruption vertical has not managed to put even one person into jail:

The NABU and SAPO have never given a prison sentence to any influential figure it has accused of corruption. The NABU’s 2019 corruption investigation into incumbent president Petro Poroshenko resulted in just as many shocking revelations as the ongoing Myndich-gate, and just as many prison sentences – NONE.

The corruption scandal is just an instrument to put pressure on Zelenski. He has rejected to mobilize people under the age of 25 and allowed people under the age of 22 to leave the country. The war hawks in the U.S. and Europe want him to draft the young men and to use them as cannon fodder in their zeal to weaken Russia.

Zelenski is being politically neutered. The opposition in the Rada wants a place at the trough. It is demanding the resignation Andrei Yermak, Zelenski’s chief of office, and the whole Yermak controlled government under Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko. A national unity government which includes the opposition is supposed to replace them. Parts of Zelenski’s Servant of the People party have defected and are now supporting the opposition’s demands.

Instead of being the center of political action President Zelenski might soon find himself being in a mere ceremonial position.

Even bigger movements are in the making. The U.S. is drafting a new plan to end(?) the war in Ukraine. (The Russian side says it has no knowledge of any such plans.) Today Trump’s envoy Steven Witkoff was supposed to meet Yermak and Zelenski in Istanbul to discuss the new plans but the meeting has been postponed.

Senior Pentagon officials have arrived in Kiev to discuss the military side of the issue:

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and chief of staff Gen. Randy George became the highest-level Trump Pentagon officials to visit Ukraine when they arrived on an unannounced trip this week, as the U.S. moves to find a way to speed the end of the war.

Meanwhile Europe is finding out that it can not afford (archived) to pay for the war in Ukraine:

Underlying Kyiv’s coming cash crunch is a fundamental disconnect between Europe’s undoubtedly sincere desire to support Ukraine and the reality that the UK, France and Germany are facing serious fiscal crises of their own. Promises to support Ukraine are of a piece with European NATO members’ pledges to commit 5 percent of their GDP to defense spending by the end of the decade – both declarations are, for the most part, unfunded.
…
The story so far of Europe’s engagement with Ukraine has been one of big pledges followed by considerably smaller deeds – and that was before Trump took away Uncle Sam’s billions. Unfortunately for Kyiv, there’s little to suggest that Europe has the means or the will to actually provide Ukraine as much as it needs, for as long as it needs.

Zelenski, and those who support to continue the war, have lost touch with reality. The Ukrainian army lacks morale, weapons and soldiers. The front is getting breached in several places. The countries vital infrastructure is getting destroyed. There is political upheaval and no money to continue the war.

The only sane way out of the chaos is to call Moscow and to agree on its conditions.

This article was originally published on Moon of Alabama.

The post Power Play in Kiev and Chaos at the Front appeared first on LewRockwell.

I had my last conversation with my MAGA supporting cousin in November of 2020. Until that point, he had led me to believe he cared for my immigrant family enough that he wouldn’t cast a vote for a lying, treasonous xenophobe who had turned a call for violence into a campaign slogan.

But my cousin had been drinking and he let the truth slip out.

His final, slurred admission made me lose interest in anything he had to say. However, until that point, I’d been trying to understand his perspective.

Perhaps I was making it more complicated than it needed to be. His perspective was this: GUNS!

That’s it. There’s no nuance. There’s no complexity. There’s no hidden meaning. My MAGA supporting cousin wanted guns.

“I won’t live beneath the rule of a tyrant!” he declared.

“Okay,” I said. “But right now, your dear leader is claiming he’s not going to step down even though he lost. Without any evidence, he’s spreading lies about election irregularities that threaten to shake our country apart at the seams. He’s behaving like a dictator. If you refuse to live beneath the rule of a tyrant, will you march on Washington if your dear leader unlawfully attempts to retain power?”

“Er… the government listens in on these phone calls you know. So, I’m not going to say anything.”

“That’s what I thought.”

My MAGA supporting cousin’s personal mythology was that if he was in the possession of guns, he would be able to magically save himself from “tyrants.” He considers himself a “law and order patriot” but also firmly believes the government represents the greatest single threat to his freedom.

For some reason, he completely fails to recognize the danger of a billionaire who longs to become a tyrant, not just in practice but also in name. Why do conservatives have this blind spot? Why can’t they recognize that billionaires are tyrants already?

My cousin’s heart pills

My cousin thinks he’s free, but he can’t live without his heart pills. He’s always complaining about how expensive his heart pills are. Pills are more expensive in the United States than anywhere else in the world.

Why are life-saving pharmaceuticals expensive in the USA? It’s because the physical suffering of American citizens is secondary to appeasing the billionaires’ insatiable hunger for profit.

You may have a gun, but how free are you if your heart doesn’t work?

Billionaires control the price of everything. If working class people start to get ahead, billionaires have enough power to crash the economy. Inflation doesn’t bother them. They can just wait it out. They can hold on to assets until the economy recovers. It’s only working class people who feel the burden.

The whole idea that it’s possible to “get ahead” in the USA is an illusion. Billionaires dangle that carrot to keep us docile as we work ourselves to death while they reap all the rewards. Wake up! We’ve got the yoke of the tyrants on our backs. The government is supposed to protect us from “all enemies foreign and domestic.”

Why does the government refuse to protect us from the tyranny of billionaires?

The government is based on following the will of the people. We go through the charade of having elections, but in the end it doesn’t matter who we elect. Every representative from the state to the federal level follows the will of the billionaires, not the will of the people.

The result is that everything in the United States is unfairly tipped to favor obscenely wealthy sociopaths. These individuals who accrue massive fortunes are able to push through the laws that they want, manipulate markets, deny your access to health care… the list goes on and on.

We live under the rule of tyrants now

The government is supposed to protect us from tyrants, but conservatives have duped their followers into thinking the government is the only threat to freedom we face. Freedom has MANY enemies. That should be obvious.

Why can’t the American public see that individual citizens who are more powerful than the government are also a threat to our freedom?

We’ve all been disenfranchised by the fact that billionaires own every candidate that runs for office.

The truth is government isn’t a threat. Government is a tool. In the right hands, the tool can be wielded for good. In the wrong hands, the tool can be wielded for evil. It’s ironic because that’s what conservatives say about guns.

Right now, the tool of government is being wielded to establish a class of billionaires who think the “rule of law” shouldn’t apply to them. Just a few years ago, we witnessed a billionaire make an attempt to overthrow the government.

That’s a pretty blatant attack on your freedom.

Anyone who is paying attention should have seen this coming in 2016. The government isn’t our enemy, the billionaires are. Electing a billionaire to the highest office in our country was like making Freddy Krueger chief of staff at a nursery.

It should tell you something when the most tyrannical people in our society crack a smile at you and say, “You can keep your guns.” It’s because tyrants know guns in the hands of citizens do not represent a threat to their power.

The billionaire mentality

Billionaires have a gaping hole in their psyche that can never be filled. Our corrupt president has placed himself squarely in the spotlight, so he serves as an appropriate example. All you have to do is look at his life with unfiltered eyes and it’s obvious how detestable and miserable it is.

The way he chases attention is pathetic. What other word could you use? His behavior lacks any sign of dignity or self-respect. People only tolerate his company because they want something from him.

You don’t have to be a billionaire to see this unfortunate side of human nature. I’ve been in the presence of people who liked to flash money around. Every time they did so, a certain class of individual came crawling out of the underworld to shower them with intoxicating praise.

When people get in the habit of flashing money, every interaction in their life becomes transactional. They begin to delude themselves into believing that this is the only form of relationship that can exist. They think, “It all comes down to money in the end, there are no sincere emotions.”

Read the Whole Article

The post We Live Under the Rule of Tyrants Now! appeared first on LewRockwell.

I may be in the minority, as my stances are in many matters, in the Tucker Carlson brouhaha, but it was only a matter of time before the Israeli lobby and the neocons would find a villain to help people forget 68,000 dead and counting in Gaza, most of them innocent women, children, and old people. They did the same thing to Pat Buchanan when he dared to say that the Israeli lobby and the U.S. government were not one and the same. Buchanan was and is as anti-Semitic as I am, and I am not. But anyone who dares to do or say anything that the neocons can use to besmirch those they don’t agree with is fodder for them.

They now have a new boogeyman, but I for one don’t buy it. Their glee reminds me of Watergate. President Nixon had just won 49 states, and the Washington elite were in a daze. Then some fools broke into a place they were not supposed to break into, and goodbye, Nixon. Tucker Carlson is not Nixon, but he had someone who is a nonperson on his podcast, so now “they” demand a goodbye to Carlson. The fact that other respected and famous journalists have interviewed bad guys doesn’t count. Murrow, Rather, and countless others have done it with impunity. Mike Wallace once claimed in a nationally televised roundtable discussion during Vietnam that if he were present and able to warn the leader of an American military unit walking into a VC trap, he would remain a journalist and simply report it, not warn his fellow Americans. I went bananas and wrote in one of my columns that Wallace should be drawn and quartered, plus some other personal insults. It was his turn to go bananas, and he confronted me at a party given by Bill Buckley. I told him to shove it.

“Canceling Tucker would be par for the course by those who see anti-Semitism in the slightest criticism of Israel.”

The plan is simple: Link any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and presto. The plan has been around for a long time, but with Netanyahu going ape down there, it is imperative that it works in the U.S., which provides the money and the arms. The horrendous killings in Gaza are now a thing of the past. The anti-Semitic guest of Tucker Carlson is the headline. What made me laugh out loud was Bret Stephens writing in the Times. Desperate to make his point and to preempt social media, he writes that “You can be sure that someone will respond to this column by pointing out that my Kishinev-born grandfather changed his name from Erlich to Stephens…” In other words, this clown Stephens is provoking some fool on social media to attack him because of him being Jewish with a Christian name. I don’t and never have used social media—too low-life for me—but preempting anti-Semitic jibes by unknowns is a new one.

Canceling Tucker would be par for the course by those who see anti-Semitism in the slightest criticism of Israel. The American Conservative magazine was created in order to stop Uncle Sam from needlessly going to war in search of nuclear weapons held by Saddam Hussein. Thousands upon thousands of dead later on, we now know that the neocons and the Israeli lobby knew all along that there were no weapons of mass destruction in the Iraqi arsenal, yet they now dare to scream anti-Semitism when a journalist brings some clown to his podcast. Isn’t it a bit like the boy who cried wolf once too often, or am I an anti-Semite for even daring to write this?

The Iraq War and the overthrow of Ghaddafi have not brought peace to the area and have brought millions of unwelcome migrants to Europe. The N.Y. Times columnists are shrieking that the United States is led by “a lawless and depraved” person. They’re screaming about Tucker Carlson and raging anti-Semitism in the media. I wake up in the morning, train hard, and then while reading the papers wonder what country I’m in. Is it Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, or Mao’s China? Everyday churchgoing Christians who voted Republican are described as white supremacists and anti-Semites. A man called Jeffrey Toobin, caught on film masturbating at The New Yorker magazine, appears in the Times declaring that “We’re in a worse place than we were under Nixon.” Some lefties might agree with him, but I advise them not to shake his hand.

Yes, dear Takimag readers, the left in America hate this country and will spread any rumor to detract from the fact that Uncle Sam is numero uno right now, but he better not say anything about Israel taking over the Left Bank because it will prove once and for all what a horrible anti-Semite the good uncle is.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post The New Boogeyman appeared first on LewRockwell.

He’s Zelensky’s powerbroker so his downfall could undo the already shaky alliance between the armed forces, the oligarchs, the secret police, and parliament that keeps Zelensky in power, thus pressuring him into peace, especially if his warmongering grey cardinal is no longer pushing him to keep fighting.

It was earlier assessed here that Ukraine’s $100 million energy graft scandal might only result in a cabinet reshuffle at most, the sentiment of which RT chief Margarita Simonyan shared when writing on X “But we all know it won’t” in response to The Spectator predicting that it might bring Zelensky down. The events of the past week warrant a re-evaluation after members of the ruling party demanded the resignation of his powerful Chief of Staff Andrey Yermak on the grounds that he knew about this racket.

This coincided with Axios’ report that the US and Russia have been secretly working on a framework agreement for ending the Ukrainian Conflict, which Politico then reported could be agreed to “by the end of this month — and possibly ‘as soon as this week.’” The latter’s source also allegedly told them that “We don’t really care about the Europeans. It’s about Ukraine accepting”, which they said it might very well do since the plan will essentially “be presented to Zelensky as a fait accompli.”

Politico’s reporter elaborated that “They feel that Ukraine is in the position right now, given the corruption scandals that have been plaguing Zelenskyy, given where the battle lines are at this moment, that Ukraine is in a position where … they feel they can get them to accept this deal.” Accordingly, it can be reassessed that this corruption scandal championed by the US-backed “National Anti-Corruption Bureau” might facilitate an end an end to the conflict, especially if Yermak goes down as a result.

He’s considered to be Zelensky’s powerbroker so his downfall could undo the already shaky alliance between the armed forces, the oligarchs, the secret police, and parliament that keeps Zelensky in power. Zelensky’s imprisoned former ally Igor Kolomoysky claimed that Timur Mindich, Zelensky’s longtime business partner at the center of this scandal who fled the country to avoid imminent arrest after being tipped off, is “a classic fall guy.” This suggests that Yermak might be the one who managed everything.

Extrapolating upon this hypothesis, that would explain why the EU is downplaying this corruption scandal, spinning it as supposed proof that Ukraine’s state institutions are working properly, and actively trying to counter the spread of facts in relation to it. Yermak is Zelensky’s grey cardinal and suspected of being the reason why the Ukrainian leader continually rejects peace. If he goes down as a result of this scandal, then peace might finally be possible. He could also take down his European partners too.

After all, some of their officials might have been profiting from this graft scandal or others that he’s possibly involved in, while their intelligence services must have known about the scale of this corruption. If Yermak vindictively spills the beans, provided of course that Zelensky turns on him under pressure from the ruling party (which might be supported by the US as part of a campaign to get him to agree to whatever peace deal that they soon present), then it could lead to political scandals all across Europe.

With this latest insight in mind, it can therefore be assessed that Ukraine’s corruption scandal might pressure Zelensky into a peace deal, but only if the aforesaid sequence of events unfolds. The speed with which everything has thus far unfolded, especially with respect to his ruling party turning against Yermak and the latest reports about the US and Russia secretly working on a framework agreement for ending the conflict, makes this a credible scenario. Everything will certainly be clearer by the end of the month.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

The post Ukraine’s Corruption Scandal Might Pave the Way for Peace if It Takes Yermak Down appeared first on LewRockwell.

Nell’autunno del 2014 hanno iniziato a circolare le voci secondo le quali il professor Israel Meir Kirzner (classe 1930 economista, rabbino britannico naturalizzato statunitense ed esponente della scuola austriaca), insieme a William Baumol (classe 1922, economista statunitense, professore alla New York University e alla Princeton University), erano possibili candidati per il premio Nobel. La fonte del rumor era la Thomson-Reuters – la società di database scientifico – e alla base della voce erano i modelli di citazione. Anche se è un database diverso, ma solo per facilità di ricerca ai lettori di questo saggio, in modo che possano verificare la presenza di se stessi, una ricerca su Google Scholar sarà sufficiente a fornire una certa prospettiva sull’impatto scientifico in fase di registrazione da Baumol e Kirzner. I rilevanti contributi di Baumol sono i seguenti:

• “Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive.” Journal of Political Economy 98(5) 1990: 893-921 con 4.641 citazioni;

• Contestable Markets and The Theory of Industry Structure. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982 (coauthored with John C. Panzar, and Robert D. Willig) con 6.454 citazioni;
• “Contestable Markets: An Uprising in the Theory of Industry Structure.” The American Economic Review 72(1) 1982: 1-15 con 2.455 citazioni;
• “Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory.” The American Economic Review 58(2) 1968: 64-71 con 1.581 citazioni.

I contributi rilevanti di Kirzner dovrebbero includere:

• Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973 con 7.550 citazioni;

• “Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach.” Journal of Economic Literature 35(1) 1997: 60-85 con 3.273 citazioni;

• Perception, Opportunity, and Profit: Studies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979 con 2.604 citazioni. (1)

Confronta questi numeri con i precedenti premi Nobel, come F.A. Hayek, il cui “l’uso della conoscenza nella società” ha raccolto 13.935 citazioni e opere come La via della schiavitù e la costituzione della libertà, che sono stati citati più di 8.000 volte ciascuno. Al famoso “Il ruolo della politica monetaria” di Milton Friedman poco più di 7.000 citazioni e la sua Storia monetaria degli Stati Uniti (coautore con Anna Schwartz – 1915-2012 economista americana al National Bureau of Economic Research di New York City) appena sotto le 8.000. Di James Buchanan (1919-2013 economista statunitense) Il Calcolo del consenso (coautore con Gordon Tullock – 1922-2014 economista) è stato citato più di 10.000 volte, ma il suo saggio seguente più citato è: “La teoria economica dei clubs” che ha raccolto poco più di 3.800 citazioni.

Quindi le voci non erano incredibili sulla base dei criteri della Thomson-Reuters. E Baumol e Kirzner erano già stati riconosciuti in Svezia con il Premio Internazionale per l’Imprenditorialità e la Ricerca sulle piccole imprese e per il loro lavoro nel campo dell’imprenditoria. Così, ancora una volta, le voci erano (sono) plausibili, anche se, naturalmente, improbabili – soprattutto per quanto riguarda Kirzner, dato il suo status di outsider. Ahimè, né Baumol né Kirzner hanno ricevuto la telefonata quel giorno dell’ottobre nel 2014.

Ho intenzione di utilizzare questa occasione per fornire alcuni motivi per chiedere di avere, e speriamo, ricevere quel riconoscimento da parte della Svezia, in particolare perché i contributi di Israel Kirzner alla nostra comprensione del comportamento concorrenziale, della struttura industriale e del processo del mercato imprenditoriale dovrebbero essere riconosciuti. Vorrei anche dimostrare che il lavoro di Kirzner fornisce una piattaforma per la ricerca futura alla teoria dei prezzi ed al sistema di mercato più in generale. (2)

L’aspetto dei contributi che voglio sottolineare sono le intuizioni di Kirzner sulla naturale rivalità del comportamento concorrenziale e del processo di mercato. Egli ha sollevato le questioni fondamentali per l’analisi della teoria del mercato ed il funzionamento del sistema dei prezzi, che è alla base stessa della scienza economica. I suoi scritti sul comportamento economico, in tutta la loro varietà e complessità, esplorano l’ambiente istituzionale che consente una economia di mercato per realizzare i vantaggi reciproci dal commercio, per ritrovare continuamente i guadagni da innovazione, per produrre un sistema caratterizzato dalla crescita economica e per la creazione di ricchezza.

L’interesse personale e la Mano Invisibile

La scienza economica fin dalla sua nascita si compone di due affermazioni che devono essere conciliate l’uno con con l’altra: il postulato dell’interesse personale e la spiegazione della mano invisibile. Da Adam Smith in avanti molti hanno spiegato il rapporto del collassare, uno sull’altro, attraverso i rigorosi presupposti cognitivi e postulando un ambiente privo di attrito o hanno cercato di dimostrare l’impossibilità di far quadrare queste due affermazioni a causa di carenze cognitive o di una varietà di attriti supposti.

Così i dibattiti di economia politica sul ruolo del governo nell’economia tendevano, dopo la Seconda Guerra Mondiale, ad accendere ad un assioma dei mercati perfetti o la dimostrazione di deviazioni da quella ideale a causa di mercati imperfetti. Kirzner, fin dall’inizio della sua carriera, ha dovuto affrontare obiezioni alle spiegazioni della mano invisibile associate a domande riguardanti la razionalità umana, l’esistenza del potere del monopolio, la pervasività delle esternalità ed ad una varietà di deviazioni dal libro di testo ideale della concorrenza perfetta.

In due modi gli economisti hanno risposto alle critiche del funzionamento dell’economia di mercato: in primo luogo, la chiarezza concettuale, in cui il teorico insiste sull’illustrare le condizioni di base su cui si stanno facendo affermazioni sulla mano invisibile e dimostrando che le critiche si basavano su fondamenta sbagliate; in secondo luogo, dalla dimostrazione che le deviazioni dalla nozione dal manuale ideale della concorrenza perfetta, non necessariamente, impediscono al sistema dei prezzi, di fare il proprio lavoro, di coordinare l’attività produttiva di alcuni i modelli di consumo con degli altri e la spiegazione della teoria della mano invisibile del mercato risulta dalla ricerca del proprio interesse all’interno di un certo insieme di condizioni istituzionali. Tali condizioni istituzionali sono stabilite dalle leggi di proprietà e di contratto che sono fissate e applicate e che costituiranno il quadro in cui ha luogo l’interazione economica.

Nel lavoro di Kirzner esamineremo entrambe queste risposte alle critiche del mercato. In realtà ha intitolato un saggio relativamente tardi nella sua carriera “I limiti del mercato: il reale e l’immaginato” (1994). La chiarezza concettuale percorre un lungo cammino per correggere un libero pensiero legato alla razionalità umana, all’esternalità, al potere del monopolio, ecc. ed alla forza dei processi di mercato per fornire l’incentivo agli operatori economici di adeguare continuamente il loro comportamento e di adattarsi al mutare delle circostanze per gran parte del rimanente. Lontano dal ribadire una teoria del ricostruito mercato-perfetto, questo approccio Kirzneriano costringe l’analista a guardare con attenzione alle proprietà dinamiche del sistema in quanto è in continua evoluzione verso una soluzione ed il ruolo essenziale è svolto nel quadro della strutturazione del contesto economico.

L’“inefficienza” di oggi è l’opportunità di profitto di domani per l’individuo che è in grado di agire alla situazione e di spostare il sistema in una direzione meno “errata” di prima. E se l’attuale decisore critica e non fa il necessario aggiustamento, un altro lo farà per lui, le risorse saranno reindirizzate, ed un modello di scambio e di produzione emergerà meglio coordinato dai piani dei partecipanti al mercato. Il lavoro di Kirzner volge la nostra attenzione teorica lontano dagli esercizi di ottimizzazione contro il vincolo dei dati e verso gli attori umani attenti e creativi che scoprono continuamente strade per realizzare profitti dal commercio e guadagni dalla innovazione.

Kirzner e Mises

Ludwig von Mises ha stimolato la ricerca intellettuale di Kirzner. Nato in Inghilterra il 13 febbraio 1930, Kirzner e la sua famiglia si trasferirono in Sud Africa nel 1940. Nel 1947 ha frequentato l’Università di Città del Capo, ma poi si trasferì negli Stati Uniti alla fine dell’anno accademico. Dopo la laurea al Brooklyn College, nel 1954, Kirzner decise di conseguire la laurea in economia aziendale, con indirizzo in ragioneria, presso la New York University e nel 1955 ha conseguito il Master in Business Adomistradion. Mentre completava il corso per l’MBA, Kirzner ha cercato un corso più impegnativo, per sua scelta, così ha guardato nell’elenco della facoltà i professori che avevano pubblicato molti libri ed erano stati premiati con prestigiosi riconoscimenti. Capitò sul nome di Ludwig von Mises. Lui ha raccontato la sua storia innumerevoli volte; i compagni e gli amministratori lo avvertirono di non frequentare quel corso perché dicevano che Mises era vecchio e non più al passo con i tempi.

Ma Kirzner frequentò, comunque, il corso che ha cambiato la sua vita. Nello stesso semestre stava seguendo la teoria dei prezzi, utilizzando La teoria del prezzo di Stigler (1952) e imparando a distinguere fra la scelta entro i vincoli e la logica della concorrenza perfetta; nel seminario di Mises stava leggendo l’Azione umana (Human Action), portando a conoscenza l’agonia umana del processo decisionale in mezzo a un mare di incertezze e che il mercato non era un luogo o una cosa, ma un processo. Le idee di Mises lo incuriosivano e conciliando ciò che stava imparando da Stigler con quello che stava apprendendo da Mises hanno scatenato la sua immaginazione intellettuale. E’ cambiato il suo percorso: dalla carriera di contabile professionista a quella di economista accademico. In un primo momento Mises, che ha riconosciuto il potenziale di Kirzner, gli raccomanda di andare alla Johns Hopkins University e lavorare con il più giovane, il più professionale ed inserito tra gli economisti accademici contemporanei: Fritz Machlup (1902-1983 economista austriaco). Mises ha persino organizzato una borsa di studio per Kirzner. Ma Kirzner ha scelto di rimanere, fino alla fine, alla New York University sotto la direzione di Mises ed il suo dottorato di ricerca in economia è stato premiato nel 1957. In quel periodo ha ricevuto la nomina a professore di economia alla New York University e ha insegnato fino al suo pensionamento nel 2000.

Il primo libro di Kirzner è stato: Il punto di vista economico (1960), sviluppato dal suo dottorato di ricerca come tesi di laurea. Bettina Bien Greaves (classe 1917), della Fondazione per l’Educazione Economica, ha frequentato regolarmente il seminario di Mises alla New York University e ha preso accurati appunti nel corso degli anni. Un aspetto di quelle note erano le idee di ricerca che Mises avrebbe tirato fuori dal corso. La prima idea del genere la annotò il 9 novembre 1950 ed era: “Hai bisogno di un libro sull’evoluzione dell’economia, come scienza della ricchezza, ad una scienza dell’azione umana”. (3) Questo argomento è quello che Kirzner ha analizzato nella sua tesi e nel libro successivo. Il punto di vista economico attentamente e meticolosamente annotato nello sviluppo del pensiero economico, concentrandosi sul significato che gli economisti hanno annoverato nel loro soggetto: dai classici (scienza della ricchezza) ai moderni (scienza dell’azione umana). Il capitolo chiave del libro cerca di elaborare lo sviluppo della prasseologia di Mises.

L’importanza della prasseologia di Mises

Kirzner sostiene tutti i contributi unici di Mises nei vari campi della teoria economica, perché sono il risultato di uno sviluppo coerente della prospettiva prasseologica sulla natura della scienza economica. “Se la teoria economica, come la scienza dell’azione umana, è diventata un sistema per mano di Mises, essa è così perché la sua comprensione, del suo carattere prasseologico, impone le sue proposizioni in una logica epistemologica che di per sé crea questa unità ordinata” (Kirzner, il punto di vista economico, p. 160).

L’economia, come il ramo più sviluppato della prasseologia, deve iniziare con la riflessione sull’essenza dell’azione umana. “Lo scopo non è qualcosa che deve essere semplicemente ‘preso in considerazione’: esso fornisce l’unica base del concetto di azione umana” (ibid., p. 165) … I teoremi dell’economia, vale a dire, i concetti di utilità marginale, di costo dell’opportunità ed il principio della domanda e dell’offerta, sono tutti derivati dalla riflessione sulla finalità dell’azione umana. La teoria economica non rappresenta un insieme di ipotesi verificabili, ma piuttosto un insieme di strumenti concettuali che ci aiutano nella lettura del mondo empirico.

Ciò che rende unico delle scienze umane, in contrasto con le scienze fisiche, è che il punto essenziale del fenomeno, oggetto dello studio, sono gli scopi umani ed i programmi. Come studente di Mises, Fritz Machlup una volta ha posto la seguente domanda: “Se il soggetto potesse parlare, cosa direbbe?” Lo scienziato umano può attribuire il risultato ai fenomeni in discussione. In realtà egli deve assegnare lo scopo umano se vuole rendere tali fenomeni oggetto di indagine intelligibile. Possiamo capire che i pezzi di metallo e la carta cambiano la funzione alle mani, come il “denaro”, è causa delle finalità e dei piani che noi attribuiamo alle parti negoziali. Lo scienziato umano può e, anzi deve, basarsi sulla conoscenza delle tipizzazioni ideali di altri esseri umani.

Siamo in grado di capire il comportamento mirato dell’“altro”, perché noi stessi siamo umani. Questa conoscenza, denominata “conoscenza dal di dentro”, è unica per le scienze umane ed è stato un disastro totale cercare di eliminare il ricorso ad essa importando i metodi delle scienze naturali e delle scienze sociali per creare la “fisica sociale”. Gli scienziati hanno dimenticato che, mentre era opportuno eliminare l’antropomorfismo dallo studio della natura, sarebbe del tutto indesiderabile eliminare l’uomo, con i suoi scopi ed i suoi progetti, dallo studio dei fenomeni umani. Un tale esercizio comporta risultati nel “meccano-morfismo” delle scienze umane (dottrina in cui l’universo è completamente spiegabile in termini meccanicistici), vale a dire, attribuendo un comportamento meccanico ai soggetti umani creativi. In una situazione del genere si finisce per parlare del comportamento economico dei robot, non degli uomini. Ma questo è esattamente quello che è successo nel dopoguerra, quando l’“economia” è stata studiata come un meccanismo astratto in contrasto con l’arena in corso dove fuori si gioca l’impegno degli individui per migliorare la loro condizione.

Il processo di mercato ed il costante cambiamento

Come sottolineato da Mises, F.A. Hayek, Kirzner ed anche da James Buchanan, nel suo più famoso saggio “Cosa dovrebbero fare gli economisti? ” (1964), l’economia non ha alcuna teleologia in quanto tale, ma gli attori all’interno dell’economia, in effetti, hanno le loro teleologie individuali. E’ fondamentale per comprendere la natura dell’economia di mercato, dal momento che una diversità di obiettivi e di programmi sono perseguiti e soddisfatti da altri; potenziali conflitti sono riconciliati attraverso lo scambio e nuovi modi di perseguire e soddisfare sono costantemente scoperti da imprenditori creativi ed attenti. L’economia non ha un unico fine; non ha uno “scopo”. E’ invece solo un “mezzo-correlato”, un “nesso di scambi volontari”. Il mercato è sempre in sviluppo, sempre in evoluzione verso una soluzione e non in nello stato finale di rilassamento.

In misura considerevole, questo è quello che voleva dire Mises quando ha detto che il mercato non è un luogo o una cosa, ma un processo. E ciò che anima questo continuo processo di scambio e di produzione è l’intenzionale protagonista umano – con tutti le sue debolezze e le sue paure, così come la sua immaginazione ed il coraggio di progettare l’inesplorato. L’attore Misesiano non è né un animale puramente reattivo, né una macchina calcolatrice fredda, ma invece è tipicamente un protagonista umano, che ha obiettivi e che cerca di utilizzare in modo creativo, con i mezzi a disposizione, di conquistare questi obiettivi in un mondo di incertezza e di ignoranza ed è in grado di apprendere, attraverso il tempo, i passi falsi precedenti e le svolte sbagliate.

Il cambiamento è un tema costante negli scritti di Mises – i cambiamenti dei gusti, della tecnologia e della disponibilità delle risorse. L’aspetto meraviglioso del sistema dei prezzi è la sua capacità di assorbire il cambiamento: il ruolo guida dei prezzi relativi, il richiamo del puro profitto e la disciplina della perdita per reindirizzare i responsabili delle decisioni economiche, così che i loro piani di produzione e le loro richieste di consumo irretite dalla nuova realtà. E’ importante sottolineare che questo processo è in corso, o come Mises mise scrive nell’originale saggio del 1920, “Il calcolo economico nel Commonwealth socialista”, il sistema dei prezzi fornisce una guida in mezzo alla “massa sconcertante di prodotti intermedi e la potenzialità di produzione” (1975 [1920]: 103) e consente ai decisori economici di negoziare l’incessante “faticare e sgobbare” (lavorare sodo) (1975 [1920]: 106) dell’adeguamento costante del mercato e dell’adattamento al mutare delle circostanze.

Kirzner nel documento del 1967, “La metodologica dell’individualismo, l’equilibrio di mercato ed il processo di mercato”, persegue le implicazioni del senso di Hayek sull’esito dei problemi economici, come conseguenza del mutare delle circostanze. Come Kirzner dice: “Questo è il carattere fondamentale del processo di mercato messo in moto con l’esistenza di una situazione di disequilibrio. L’elemento cruciale è la scoperta dell’errore e la conseguente riconsiderazione, da parte degli operatori, della vera alternativa ora apertasi. Il processo di mercato procede per comunicare la conoscenza. Il presupposto importantissimo è che gli uomini imparano dalle loro esperienze di mercato “(il corsivo è originale, 1967: 795). Questa è una descrizione che può prima essere vista nel suo articolo “l’azione razionale e la teoria economica” nel Journal of Political Economy del 1962, ma in seguito più completamente sviluppato nel suo Competition & Entrepreneurship (1973). La sua insistenza in ognuna di queste opere è il decisore umano, che è più della pura massimizzazione dell’omo-economicus, ma una creatura homo-agens più aperta e quindi l’imprenditore creativo ed attento agisce sulle lacune del sistema che si riflettono nello stato di disequilibrio delle cose.

Kirzner ne: La teoria del mercato ed il sistema dei prezzi, afferma: “Abbiamo visto che se un mercato non è in equilibrio questo deve essere il rilevante risultato di impreparazione da parte degli operatori di informazioni sul mercato. Il processo di mercato, come sempre, svolge le sue funzioni incidendo su quelli che prendono decisioni, quegli articoli essenziali di conoscenza che sono sufficienti per guidarli a prendere decisioni come se possedessero la completa conoscenza alla base dei fatti”. (tratto dall’originale, 2011 [1962 ]: 240)

Kirzner Nel significato del processo di mercato, delineerebbe l’importante distinzione tra le variabili sottostanti del mercato (i gusti, la tecnologia e la disponibilità di risorse) e le variabili indotte del mercato (prezzi e utili/perdite contabili) e ha spiegato come il processo di mercato possa essere descritto come l’attività continua che deriva da individui su entrambi i versanti del mercato e che cercano di soddisfare i loro programmi per l’ottimizzazione (1992: 42). Quando i piani di produzione, di cui alcuni perfettamente a coda di rondine (che collimano), con i piani dei consumi degli altri e le variabili indotte e sottostanti sono coerenti tra loro. Se non esiste coerenza reciproca, avremo la continua attività economica perché sarà nell’interesse delle parti di proseguire nella ricerca di una situazione migliore di quanto non si stia attualmente realizzando.

I segnali di profitto e l’imprenditorialità

I prezzi relativi ci guidano nel processo decisionale; i profitti ci invogliano nelle nostre decisioni e le perdite puniscono le nostre decisioni. Questo è il modo in cui il sistema dei prezzi imprime su di noi gli elementi essenziali della richiesta di conoscenza per il coordinamento del programma. O, come Kirzner vorrebbe riassumere il senso nel Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process” (La scoperta imprenditoriale ed il processo del mercato competitivo ndt): “Il processo imprenditoriale è così messo in moto ed è un processo che tende verso una migliore conoscenza reciproca tra i partecipanti al mercato. Il richiamo di puro profitto in questo modo imposta il processo attraverso il quale, il profitto puro, tende ad essere concorrente. La maggiore conoscenza reciproca, tramite il processo di rilevamento imprenditoriale, è la fonte della proprietà equilibrativa del mercato” (Kirzner 1997: 72).

Il contributo teorico di Kirzner offre una risposta ad una delle domande critiche della teoria economica pura – il percorso convergente all’equilibrio, guidato dalle variazioni di prezzo – un problema fastidioso e riconosciuto da Kenneth Arrow (1921-2017 economista, vincitore, assieme a John Hicks, del Nobel per l’economia nel 1972) nel suo saggio del 1959 sulla teoria dell’ aggiustamento dei prezzi, di Franklin Fisher nel Disequilibrium Foundations of Equilibrium Economics (1983) (I fondamenti del disquilibrio e dell’equilibrio in economia) e più recentemente da Avinash Dixit (classe 1944, economista) in Microeconomia: a Very Short Introduction, dove si afferma l’idea di base di analisi dell’offerta e domanda in un equilibrio di mercato: “il problema di questa risposta è che nella logica delle curve della domanda e dell’offerta ogni consumatore e produttore risponde al prezzo dominante, che è al di fuori del controllo di uno di essi. Allora, chi regola, verso l’equilibrio, il prezzo?” (2014: 51)

Kirzner risponde: è l’attenzione dell’imprenditore creativo che agisce sulle lacune dei prezzi e dei costi per realizzare i guadagni dal commercio e gli utili dalla innovazione, che regolano il comportamento del mercato dei partecipanti per coordinare i programmi di produzione con le richieste dei consumi. Il processo di mercato presenta questa tendenza per perseguire i guadagni dal commercio (efficienza di scambio), cercando di utilizzare le tecnologie meno costose nella produzione (efficienza produttiva) e soddisfare le esigenze dei consumatori (l’efficienza del prodotto-mix), ma non è così in modo da pre-conciliare tutti i programmi prima di rivelare un prezzo ed una grandezza vettoriale per liberare tutti i mercati, come in un modello walrasiano, irriducibile dall’equilibrio competitivo generale. Piuttosto lo fa attraverso il continuo processo di scambio e di produzione guidata da aggiustamenti dei prezzi relativi, il richiamo di puro profitto e la punizione della perdita, che conciliano i piani diversi, e spesso divergenti degli attori economici attraverso il processo del mercato stesso.

I mercati scendono sempre a breve dall‘idea astratta di allocazione “efficiente” (o l’ ottimo di Pareto ndt), ma il mercato stesso è adattivo efficiente ed in costante segnalazione per avvertire gli imprenditori di quali modifiche devono essere effettuate e premiare coloro che correttamente le regolano e penalizzare quelli che non lo fanno. I mercati possono ”fallire”, ma la risposta migliore è quella di consentire al mercato di fissare il “fallimento”. Gli sforzi per risolvere i guasti da parte degli attori esterni, al processo in corso di adeguamento del mercato e dell’adattamento, saranno senza aiuto da parte del sistema dei prezzi e, per definizione, la struttura di incentivi che forniscono i diritti di proprietà, la presenza di guida che i prezzi relativi offrono ed il processo di selezione reso possibile effettuata dal calcolo dei profitti e delle perdite.

Di conseguenza, le autorità di regolamentazione devono affrontare alcuni pericoli, come Kirzner ha sottolineato nel suo saggio: “I pericoli del regolamento” (1985 [1979]) correndo il rischio di generare modelli perversi di scambio e di produzione, dai principali imprenditori, in scoperte superflue, piuttosto che in scoperte che meglio coordinino i programmi degli attori economici e, in primo luogo, migliorino i conflitti che originariamente hanno motivato il desiderio di regolamentazione. L’interventismo non è solo controproducente, dal punto di vista dei suoi sostenitori, ma produce anche conseguenze involontarie e indesiderabili in tutto il sistema economico.

Il dinamismo di mercato ed i monopoli

Il lavoro di Kirzner è fondamentale per comprendere le dinamiche del mercato di oggi, come lo era quando gli economisti hanno studiato la prima struttura industriale ed il comportamento concorrenziale. Se si guarda alla struttura del mercato emergente che ha seguito Internet, potrebbe certamente riconoscere la posizione dominante, sul mercato, di Amazon, Apple e Netflix, ma si potrebbe anche avere riconosciuto il grande livello di soddisfazione dei consumatori cointeressati a queste imprese. Nonostante la loro quota di mercato dominante, queste aziende forniscono beni e servizi di qualità a prezzi bassi. E non vi è alcuna aspettativa che queste aziende continueranno ad adoperarsi per fornire prodotti di alta qualità al prezzo più basso. Questo perché si trovano a competere in un mercato contendibile (teoria di William J. Baumol del 1982 ndt).

Prendiamo in considerazione la guerra dei classici browser di una decina di anni fa, Netscape contro Microsoft Internet Explorer. Come può una società monopolistica comportarsi così se il suo prodotto può essere utilizzato per scaricare liberamente i prodotti della concorrenza? Il modello di libro di testo standard della concorrenza perfetta ed il paradigma struttura-condotta-performance, in economia industriale, è costruito su quel modello da manuale, come punto di riferimento, e semplicemente non è in grado di fornire una spiegazione pura per il mercato Internet. I leader di mercato si perdono per strada a meno che essi non continuino ad andare avanti più velocemente per soddisfare ulteriormente le preferenze dei consumatori.

E questo non è solo per il mercato Internet. Si tratta di ogni mercato, una volta che si esamina da vicino il funzionamento storico dei mercati. Questo è come funzionano i mercati, come inteso da Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek e Kirzner, e penso che si potrebbe sostenere che in modo efficace fu compreso da Smith, Say ed anche Mill. Non è la dimensione delle imprese che conta di più per valutare l’esistenza del potere di monopolio, ma che contano sono le condizioni legali di ingresso. Forse, è importante sottolineare, ancora una volta, la chiarezza concettuale e la robustezza delle risposte alle richieste di fallimento del mercato sulla base del potere di monopolio.

Per quanto riguarda la chiarezza concettuale, in particolare nella tradizione austriaca rappresentata da Murray Rothbard, si sostiene che il potere di monopolio è una conseguenza di un contributo pubblico o di un privilegio. Tuttavia è vero che questa affermazione è la risposta alla robustezza-dei-mercati e potrebbe dimostrare che una società di grandi dimensioni può crescere e possedere una significativa posizione dominante sul mercato in qualsiasi momento, ma proprio perché si trova di fronte della minaccia (reale o immaginaria) dei concorrenti , sarà costretta a comportarsi in modo competitivo, piuttosto che come previsto dal modello di monopolio, se vuole avere qualche speranza di mantenere la sua posizione dominante sul mercato. Le due specie di risposte, ancora una volta, possono andare d’accordo, ma sono distinte. La teoria imprenditoriale del processo di mercato competitivo, di Kirzner, fa impiegare entrambe, ma sottolinea la robustezza del processo di mercato.

E, come riconosciuto dagli economisti classici, come Frank Knight (1885-1972 economista) e Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950 economista), l’attore centrale nella gestione di questo processo di cambiamento delle circostanze e dell’adattamento a nuove opportunità è: l’imprenditore. La funzione centrale dell’imprenditore è quella di agire sulle opportunità finora non riconosciute per guadagno reciproco – se quelli sono disponibili in forma di opportunità di arbitraggio o di innovazioni tecnologiche che riducono i costi di produzione e di distribuzione o la scoperta di nuovi prodotti in grado di soddisfare la domanda dei consumatori. E’ l’azione imprenditoriale che mette in moto il processo del mercato competitivo e che si traduce negli adattamenti e negli adeguamenti al mutare delle condizioni, in modo che si ottiene il coordinamento complesso di piani economici, si crea ricchezza e si perpetua il progresso economico.

Conclusione

Per queste ragioni, e altro ancora, credo che Kirzner (insieme a Baumol, di cui ho accennato e a Harold Demsetz, che non ho incontrato) abbia fatto più di ogni altro economista moderno vivente per migliorare la nostra comprensione del comportamento concorrenziale e del funzionamento del sistema dei prezzi in una economia di mercato e merita quindi una seria considerazione per il premio Nobel per l’economia. Kirzner ha fornito le sfide fondamentali per l’ortodossia prevalente della concorrenza perfetta, da manuale, e le sue implicazioni non solo per la teoria economica, ma anche per la politica economica.

Il suo lavoro permette di comprendere, in profondità, la natura di come i mercati competitivi per coordinare i piani dei diversi attori economici e delle organizzazioni. Il ruolo fondamentale dei diritti di proprietà degli incentivi da strutturazione, dei prezzi relativi che guidano le decisioni della produzione e del consumo e dei profitti e perdite contabili, come vitali per il processo di calcolo economico, negli affari economici, hanno un posto centrale nel suo lavoro. Così il lavoro di Kirzner fornisce una base economica per la nostra indagine sul sistema politico ed economico più adatto per una società di individui liberi e responsabili.

Note finali

• (1) I contributi di Kirzner si trovano principalmente nella teoria economica corretta e non nel più vasto campo dell’economia politica e della filosofia sociale. Eppure, come spiegherò in conclusione, le intuizioni di Kirzner sul comportamento competitivo, struttura industriale ed il processo di mercato imprenditoriale hanno implicazioni per la politica economica di una società di individui liberi e responsabili. Questo ha portato Liberty Fund a pubblicare le sue opere complete in 10 volumi, e ho il privilegio, insieme al mio collega Frederic Sautet (classe 1968, economista francese), di servire come l’editor (redattore editoriale) di questi volumi. Fino ad oggi, sono stati pubblicati sei volumi su dieci ed il settimo volume è attualmente in produzione. Pubblicato nel momento in cui scriviamo: Il punto di vista economico (2009 [1960]) come Le opere complete di Israel M. Kirzner,

• vol. 1; Teoria del mercato e il sistema dei prezzi (2011 [1963]) come Le opere complete di Israel M. Kirzner,

• vol. 2; Saggi su capitale e interessi (2012 [1967]) come Le opere complete di Israel M. Kirzner,

• vol. 3; Concorrenza e imprenditorialità (2013 [1973]) come Le opere complete di Israel M. Kirzner,

• vol. 4; Il soggettivismo austriaco e l’emergere della teoria dell’imprenditorialità (2015) come Le opere complete di Israel M. Kirzner,

• vol. 5; e Discovery, Capitalismo, e giustizia distributiva (2016 [1989]) come

• vol. 6. Le opere complete di Israel M. Kirzner.

Ulteriori quattro volumi sono previsti nei prossimi anni per completare il set di 10 volumi. La mia speranza è che questo saggio stimolerà gli studenti di economia e di politica economica per approfittare di questa iniziativa della Liberty Fund ed apprezzare il contributo di Kirzner a livello metodologico, analitico e ideologico.

(2) Il mio obiettivo è quello di Kirzner, ma per una panoramica e la mia valutazione dei contributi di Baumol alla teoria economica e alla economia politica vedasi il mio saggio con Ennio Piano (Laureato. MBA, con dottorato preso il Dipartimento di Economia alla George Mason University), “Imprenditorialità produttiva ed improduttiva di Baumol dopo 25 anni”, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy , 5 (2) 2016: 130-44.

(3) Cfr “Argomenti ricerca ha suggerito di Mises, 1950-1968”

The post Perché Israel Kirzner merita il premio Nobel appeared first on Ludwig von Mises Italia.

Correva l’anno 2017 ed il Governo italiano, nel mese di marzo, abolì i voucher, in vista anche di un referendum che si doveva tenere nel mese di maggio dello stesso anno. La motivazione fu quella di non dividere il popolo italiano (?). Le scuse sono sempre di rigore. Certo politici, sindacati, aziende, privati, ma anche utilizzatori si trovarono concordi nell’“eccesso” di utilizzo dei voucher e non sempre in modo ortodosso. L’abolizione creò però un vuoto e ritornò imperante il LAVORO NERO (con tutte le conseguenze che conosciamo). Poi le cose cambiarono ed un bel giorno venne presentato un nuovo tipo di pagamento la:

CARTA DA PRESTAZIONE OCCASIONALE.

Di cosa si trattava? Era semplicemente una carta (di plastica) che si acquistava al Banco Posta, in banca o nelle tabaccherie e veniva rilasciata ad aziende, enti, privati ecc. I fruitori erano come sempre persone alla ricerca di un lavoro temporaneo “pagato” e che li mettesse in grado di poter soddisfare i bisogni più immediati. In pratica sostituiva i voucher. Come funzionava? Più o meno con le stesse modalità del voucher e come diceva il mio Professore di Ragioneria: “CAPITO IL CONCETTO CAPITO TUTTO!”. Ed ecco cosa sfornarono le nuove menti in relazione alla carta di ci sopra:

Ogni CARTA DA PRESTAZIONE OCCASIONALE può avere un valore di:

10, 20, 50, 100, 200 o 500 euro.

Considerando i vari tagli dettero un anche delle disposizioni:

al lavoratore il 75%:

all’ INAIL 7%, per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni;

all’INPS 13%, destinati alla Gestione Separata contributi previdenziali:

al concessionario 5%.

Per l’acquisto della CARTA DA PRESTAZIONE OCCASIONALE occorreva aggiungere un importo all’erario.

10% scadenza 7 gg.

20% “ 30 “

30% “ 90 “

35% “ 120 “

… … … …

così facendo era possibile dare una datazione ai tempi di utilizzo.

Per far capire come funzionava fecero questo esempio:

“da tempo un amico che lavorava presso un’impresa edile era senza lavoro. Ora, essendo primavera era il momento giusto per dare una rinfrescata alla casa. Feci fare alcuni preventivi, ma non rientravano nel mio budget. Allora che fare? Mi misi d’accordo con il mio amico per pitturare l’appartamento. Io compro il colore e tu ci metti il resto. Tempo concordato 5 giorni. Prezzo € 500,00 tutto compreso. Con una stretta di mano siglammo l’accordo. Mi recai dal mio tabaccaio sotto casa e acquistai con € 550,00 una CARTA DA PRESTAZIONE OCCASIONALE. Diedi al tabaccaio la mia tessera sanitaria e l’importo. Il giorno dopo, quando il mio amico “pittore” si presentò a casa con gli attrezzi attivai la CARTA DA PRESTAZIONE OCCASIONALE. Alcuni giorni dopo, terminato il lavoro, il mio amico pittore si presentò al Banco Posta per la riscossione e per pagare alcune bollette. Fine della storia e dell’esempio”.

Che cosa ci ha insegnato questo racconto?

1. Gli importi possono essere i più vari.

2. I due soggetti acquirente e fruitore sono “tracciabili” e l’ente erogante, la carta, può controllare se è solo un fatto occasionale o se rientra in una assunzione mascherata.

3. Il fruitore in caso di incidente è assicurato.

4. Il fruitore ha i contributi previdenziali versati, anche se io non sono un’azienda.

5. Gli Istituti previdenziali (INPS e INAIL) sono coinvolti.

6. L’Erario ha introiti certi nel momento della emissione della CARTA DA PRESTAZIONE OCCASIONALE.

7. Scadenza certa.

8. Non c’è il LAVORO NERO (o se c’è è parziale), tutto è verificabile.

Non esiste la perfezione nelle cose, ma il buon senso può essere utilizzato per farne buon uso. Il periodo della carta durerà, probabilmente, sino a quando la pluriennale GRANDE RECESSIONE passerà.

LE CARTE DI CREDITO NON FANNO PARTE DELLA MASSA MONETARIA.

NON E’ POSSIBILE EMETTERE TITOLI CHE IMPLICHINO LA STAMPA DI MONETA, QUEST’ULTIMA E’ RISERVATA ALLA BANCA CENTRALE EUROPEA.

The post Carta da prestazione occasionale appeared first on Ludwig von Mises Italia.