Germany Should Exit The Euro And Return To the Mark

THe NYT Opinion page includes recommends Germany leave the Euro?

(Referring to a posting elsewhere.)

Yes, it makes sense. Earlier last month I wrote a series of letters and posts recommending Germany pull out of the Euro myself. Mediterranean Europe and Germanic europe are too different in culture, social structure and values. Restore the DM. Leave the Euro to the southern countries who need it, and have similar social values, and are willing to fund those social values.

Currencies as they are currently used, are the primary means of social insurance and redistribution. People are naturally gregarious to their own ethnic groups, and are naturally not gregarious with what they see as competing groups, and in particular, groups that they see as a permanent drain on their resources.

Because currencies are a means of social insurance they are inseparable from the social orders that employ them. Countries need their own currencies. The spanish, italians and greeks can then maintain their historical poverty born of their less productive lifestyles, without impoverishing the north. Besides, the north has a new permanent semi-revolutionary underclass it is supporting at home to deal with.

THe USA has a similar problem. It is a domestic empire over somewhere between four and six separate cultures, with entirely different economic interests, and cultural interests, and political friction between them is becoming intolerable. The only reason that america government has functioned since the 1900’s, is because of the two party system, and the south’s rejection of the republican party. With the south now more pragmatic, this prior balance has been shattered, and the country is increasingly a north and west against a south and interior. For exactly the same reasons as europeans face these problems.

It is all well and good to believe in the myths of egalitarian secular humanism, while you’re living in a temporary era of post-war, then post-soviet prosperity. But western civilization no longer has it’s economic advantage over the rest of the world. The west will be permanently poorer, even if retaining it’s ordinal status, for some period of time, simply due to the northern european people’s ancient tendency to eschew corruption.

Since a currency is a reflection of social values, nations need their own currencies. The euro was a failure. Return to the DM.


Bad Policy In Democracy Is The Outcome Of War And Revolution Is The Outcome Of Bad Policy

The war period has been highly controversial, and unfortunately led to a radical minority taking control of our government, and that minority is creating policy that is against the will of the majority of the people.

This is another example of the dangers of war. Countries overreach during war. Empires overreach. Democracies, counter to conventional wisdom, are actually very willing to wage war. Yet they are unwilling to continue them. In a democracy, an exaggerated counter reaction develops in response to warfare, because only exaggerated reactions are possible, when the nation consists of opposing forces whose extreme elements determine the candidates. Extremes breed extremes by creating a dichotomy of choice between dramatic positions. These positions then empower the radicals.

There is no failure to understand this trend in history among political scientists. There is every reason to advocate it among political theologians. This is because there are very few political scientists that measure what people actually DO, and many political theologians who recommend what people SHOULD do.

Evidence is what it is. Democracy is a dangerous construct when government is a debate over the reigns by which one economic class or philosophical class can oppress the other, rather than forming a government where each class has control only over those issues where their class has demonstrated accomplishment.

This was the reason for the property requirement in the USA’s founding. While property may be an insufficient requirement in modern society that is no longer dependent upon farming, we do not have houses of government that represent classes and we need a means of empowering houses and regulating participation in the, and we must return to that state of affairs, or continue our decline and class warfare.

As I have stated before, we are all unequal in our ability to create violence. Some of us petty interpersonal violence, some of us rabble and protest, some of us revolution and civil war. I only constrain my violence because I feel the state acts justly. But we are nearing a point where I feel that the state has become a means of class oppression, specifically designed to doom me to poverty and dependence in old age, and to do my heritage, my class, and my people to servitude under a false argument for morality. And while I have rejected their please twice now, the next group of people that offers me money to raise a revolution will find me a willing advocate of bloodshed.

War is dangerous because it makes a polity and it’s state fragile, and allows radicals to obtain purchase amid the chaos and dissatisfaction, which in turn leads to oppression, which in turn leads to civil war.

While the myth of the general strike is a commoner’s revolution, the myth of a violent minority creating a coup is the nobility’s revolution. And I’m getting very close to changing from a public intellectual to a violent revolutionary. It is only marginally more interesting to be personally acquisitive, run companies, and write for a living than it is to wage war. And it is becoming painful enough to pursue the former, that the latter becomes more enchanting by the day.

We have an entire american civilization around the great lakes that is in decline, and like china, have coastal areas that oppress the interior. And a southern border under assault because of fear by those in power to protect the southern states. That is our nation’s fragile position. It simply requires fomenting local interests against a universal federal government, and restructuring our government so that it is either representative of the different nations that make up the American empire on the north American continent, or that we destroy our imperial government and restore power to the regions.

The world has adopted commercial capitalism. We have completed the act for which our federal government was created: to sell off the american continent. We no longer need to be the world’s policemen. And we are no longer competitive enough and possessed of enough advantage that we can continue to do so. Now we find ourselves the citizens of a corrupt and declining state. It is time to let local areas prosper, and return to the practical matters of civic interest in local development and politics away from our fascination with theocratic democracy, socialism and empire.


An Understanding Of Greenspan

A more analytical understanding of Greenspan:

First, If you read enough of Greenspan, he tried to master the processes by which businesses actually made decisions, to a degree that few economists ever attempt. He was intimately aware of the daily needs and habits of business. He was intimately informed in a way few others seem to have been.

Second, he actually believed the new devices for distributing risk (along with the formulae of the quants) would work as prescribed.

Third. like most people of the Regan/Thatcher era, he was trying to counteract socialist influences in society. They had very clear memories of the pre-johnson era and also had the unfortunate experience of living through the 1970’s, which was about as depressing and hopeless as the times we face today. It was from this contrast that they took their motivation. We forget that in retrospect, these people were trying to use monetary policy to reconstruct prior libertarian values. They hoped to rebuilt a society of individual responsibility (and ownership) using a tool which accomplishes the opposite, even if they felt using that tool was acceptable if it was only used for the short term.

It is in these three errors that Greenspan built his house of cards: first, business can use credit to privatize wins and socialize losses, and did so. Deep knowledge of business is good, but deeper knowledge of human nature is even better.

Personally I am not sure this device to retrain people out of socialistic beliefs would not have worked had the state provided direct liquidity into competitive innovation in the Indian model rather than general liquidity, and regulated banking such that all originated loans must remain with their originators. In effect libertarian values need to come from somewhere. They are not terribly natural to man. And liberty has always, throughout history, been the objective of a minority. (PLease don’t beat on me for advocating state intention, i”m not attempting to do so, only explain what would have been possible in context.)

Second, the new devices and formulae were erroneous, and for commonly stood austrian reasons: the quantitative content of these devices is inseparable from the individual knowledge of the loan’s originator. Very little debt is predictable under duress, and it cannot be aggregated, because fundamentally all credit consists of unique categories, because these categories are determined by knowledge only available to the originator.

Third, the influence of these people on the momentum of the bureaucracy, was insufficient. And that is the real Misesian/Rothbardian problem. To enact such a thing at scale would require political force actively despised by the field’s advocates. Describing an ideal state of affairs is an impressive and important research program. It has yielded most of the answer we are looking for in solving the problem of economic, political and social theory. People in our libertarian camp, have not supplied yet a sufficiently POSITIVE argument for political economy. Hoppe is closest. Hayek tried desperately. But Mises, Hayek, Parsons, and Popper all failed to provide a sufficiently positive argument. It certainly appears that Keynes did find a sufficiently positive argument even if it was an erroneous one. (Although the debate is open on whether he would have approved of how his ideas were used.)

But more importantly, libertarians are a minority. We have always been a minority. And we are likely to continue to be one. We have a philosophy of the entrepreneurial class. And as a class philosophy it is an insufficient philosophy as currently constructed. That is, unless we understand that in this division of labor we need at least three philosophical frameworks: one for each class.

As such, while Greenspan failed, I don’t blame him for failing, any more than I blame Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, Popper or Parsons for failing.

It is becoming clear that the dominant political structure of the future consists not of democratic capitalism, nor social democracy, but of totalitarian capitalism, because only totalitarian capitalism can concentrate capital in sufficient quantity and rapidly in time to maintain the status of elites in one nation against those of others.

And if we think that there will not be political elites who profit from their position, then we do not understand the history of mankind.