Tag Archives: economy

Peter Schiff and Rand Paul destroy the liar Janet Yellen

The new head of the Federal Reserve Bank, Janet Yellen, is so intellectually limited and economically impaired that she (or he) would almost make you regret Bankster-in-Chief Ben Bernanke. Almost.

Watch Senator Rand Paul and Patriot Peter Schiff team up to destroy what was left of her/his credibility.

Expose Foreign Banker lies, defeat the New World Order !

Support Rand Paul and Peter Schiff against the globalist tyranny.

And share this post as much as you can 😉

source: http://www.nationsiege.com/politics/why-rand-paul-would-destroy-hillary-clinton-2016

Advertisements

Gary Johnson : Demagogy 2.0

We recently revealed the demagogue in chief Ron Paul, leader of the Demagogic Party of America (the only party we have unfortunately).

This week we’ll introduce a new candidate, a forerunner who despite is late appearance has still many demagogic tools in his arsenal.

You know, the one that calls himself classical liberal but refuses to acknowledge the main principle of classical liberalism : the right of a civilization to govern itself.

While I have no doubt that Gary Johnson would be a perfectly good “liberal” candidate, as in left-wing socialist hippie, I have a hard time seeing him as a classical liberal of any form.

I don’t know what is a bigger spoliation than to refuse to a nation the right to govern itself.
I don’t know what is a bigger violation of private property than to allow invasions for foreign countries, and even encourage them (we are talking about the man who wants amnesty for all illegals).

It’s funny that when the US Army intervenes in Afghanistan or Syria, the globalist media is always whining about “invasions”, “unconstitutional wars”, and so forth. But they always fail to show the REAL invasion going on : illegal immigration.

But the global agenda will never allow a serious candidate for president of the United States, as their goal is that we become a mediocre country lacking our own culture, destroyed by 60 years of ethnomasochism, and being controlled and occupied by foreign interests.

I strongly criticize Gary Johnson’s views on immigration, but you would think that as a so-called “libertarian” he would at least have a decent economic program right ?

Bullshit, his economic plan is probably the weakest of any candidate (even behind Obama).

Abolish tariffs ? Seriously ? So how are you going to get any state income ? Tax labor ? capital gains ? VAT ?

How can you call yourself libertarian and want to tax labor ? As a matter of fact, how can you be in the twenty-first century and want to tax labor ?

He always brags about how he balanced the budget as governor (what more or less every republican governor has ever done), but it’s quite easy to do so if you’re going to tax capital, labor and consumption.

The real question to ask yourself is : what will be our economic situation in ten years, once every company will have moved offshore ?

High tariffs are an incentive for a company to move somewhere, as well as low labor/capital taxes. Gary Johnson wants the opposite for our country, the opposite of what has always worked, the opposite of what is working RIGHT NOW for the top exporters in the world and those who at least have a positive trade balance.

Will it work for the USA ? Has it ever worked for anyone who has applied it ? No.
Does it buy votes ? Does it seems serious to the uneducated masses ? Apparently.

I don’t know what’s the worst in all this : that an ignorant like Gary Johnson would become a presidential candidate, or that some people take him seriously.

End the FED (but still print my money plz)

fed-systemIt’s very funny to follow the official and orchestrated globalist media propaganda, not only funny because of the content they display but especially for the reactions to the politically orchestrated media campaigns.

You may have heard my criticize either the stimulus, Ron Paul or our current political decisions involving printing more money and selling or sovereignty to the foreign to pay for our trade deficit… that already benefits the foreign.

Now you may also have heard me state on diverse occasions that I find our current political situation very funny, and you may also have wondered why I allow myself to laugh at such things.
After all, millions of Americans losing their jobs and their homes to pay for foreign banks, foreign lobbies and foreign wars isn’t particularly sophisticated, courteous or refined.

Furthermore, the fact that these same millions of Americans seem to ask for more of the same policies that got them where they are today doesn’t seem very amusing either… at first.

About the FED and why the middle class is shooting itself in the foot

You see, I am a big advocate of personal responsibility and live by the guideline of what you seed you must harvest. Understand now why it annoys me subtly when some Americans decide not only to sell or sovereignty to the foreign, but then decide as a collectivized lobby to blame other Americans. Note that scapegoats are never foreign, as that would be intolerant.

That’s also a reason why I dislike the FED system, collectivist economic systems and socialism altogether, other than because they ruin our economic power and political freedom of course.

Yet these recent months it has been very interesting to notice the assemblies of middle class representatives, amongst various lobbies and politically engaged organizations, call for an “end to the FED”. Whether by FED they mean the “FED system” to which I refer or the actually Federal Reserve Bank I do not know.

But what I do know is that these representatives are not only biting the hand that feeds them, they are also shooting themselves in the foot (both feet actually).

What is funny in this situation, and what these Americans aren’t realizing, is that they are about to get a pretty good taste of what reality and individual responsibility look like, whether they like it or not. Probably not otherwise they wouldn’t have tried to escape these concepts in the first place.

Now all this masquerade of a dignified incompetence mixed with a tumultuous ignorance of even the basic economic concepts couldn’t have been possible without the undesired yet ostentatious participation of our eminent globalist leader : congressman Ron Paul.

Tip : Anytime the word “incompetence” is involved, think of Ron Paul.

It’s particularly ridiculous to see the same middle class that desperately whimpered and sobbed for a system designed to detach them from the reality of the financial market, now chanting openly for the abrogation of this system. Whether they realize or not (obviously not) is that they are about to taste the consequences of fifty years of reality denial.

I don’t know if Ron Paul really believes, as a good demagogue, that he can please as much people by repealing the FED system (if he’s even going to do so when elected) or if it’s just another electoral maneuver to rally the masses under a meaningless slogan.
Now I speak of Ron Paul because he is the only one that proposes to repeal this system, and I give him props for that (not too much though cause he’s still an idiot), but whether the middle class wants it or not (surprisingly they do), the FED system will have to end. Only the more Americans wait the harder they will get f*cked.

I really don’t know why those Americans, the ones that profited of the unrealistic and artificial monetary system not the hardworking patriots, would want it to end. They probably believe it will be the same as before, only they don’t have to pay taxes anymore (“yeeeeeah” stupid Californian-suburb accent).

Well unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the rest of the economy, that won’t be the case.

The same way you don’t step out of fifty years of collective irresponsibility, international socialism and ethnomasochism without consequences, you don’t step out of an artificial monetary system the same way either.

What they don’t realize is that the FED is helping these OWS hippies to the expense of the workers, the bosses, the companies and every other wealth creator. They think that someone they’re going to fuck over the “banks” with that ? Don’t worry that banks know how to capitalize their assets whether the dollar goes up or down.

What the end of the FED system really means, is that Americans will no longer be dependent of the FED and the government, but the global economic system. And when we see how little these Americans know about it, we have good reasons to be scared. Or amused.

The end of the FED system will mark the end of artificially pumped jobs : workers will start to be remunerated not by government imposed standard but by market standards. In other words, how useful they are to the overall economy. There will be no more teaching applied art history in a public school for 5K/month. It will also be likely that we see many restructuring plans within American companies.

The end of the FED system will also mark the end of the buying stuff you can’t afford. Notably our record high trade deficit. The government is always bragging about how the continuous stimulus was designed to help the banks and the different industries. That couldn’t be farther from the truth seeing how fast the money we print ends up out of our borders. The government is actually doing more harm than good to these industries by allowing the FED system to pursue.

The end of the FED system will also mark the end of the American business model. The laws of supply = demand will finally be respected, and our trade balance will at least have to be brought up to equilibrium.

Americans will have to stop relying on governmental intervention, stimulus, borrowed money, printed money, taxed money, artificial monetary systems and start producing their own goods. The globalist system will have to be progressively revoked since incompatible with economic reality.

Americans will have to adapt or die. And currently seeing how most hippies are only concerned with gay rights, peace, marijuana decriminalization, tolerance or ecology, it will be very funny trying to see them adapt to a new system, completely incompatible with the globalist propaganda they were encourage to plebiscite : economic reality.

What is really quite amusing is that for once, there will be no scrapegoats. The middle class will be hit hard (and repeatedly) with the very own rod they’ve been building for fifty years, fifty years of foreign dependance, de-localization of our production facilities, collective irresponsibility and ethnomasochism. There will be no excuses this time, economic reality doesn’t allow excuses anyway. No banks to blame, no government to accuse, no rich class to denounce.

I have but one recommendation for these Americans : nationalism.

Nationalism is the only constant in the factors that contributes to a successful nation. Some are more or less liberal, more or less governmental dependent, more or less socialist ; some have devalued currencies, some have healthcare, but the one constant is that they are nationalist.

Ron Paul is no better than Obama really, they’re both two politicians disconnected from the reality of the market, both of them promoting a dead ideology. The only props Ron Paul can have are for his minimal economic experience and the fact that he hasn’t been elected yet, so there’s not much to hold against him.

But don’t be fooled, there’s a reason why Ron Paul is so popular amongst our enemies : he is a demagogue, an internationalist and a delusional moralist. He always bases his judgement on how things should or should not be, never on what they are. He presents free trade and free market as the new magic pill, yet no successful country has really applied any part of his program.
The real successful countries, notably those who have a very high positive trade balance, are usually those who have strong governmental regulations to protect their market. And they are all nationalists, that’s what allows them to lend us their money. Which is actually our money they retrieved from their trade surplus.

American nationalists don’t believe in socialism and regulation, no more than they believe in free trade globalist delusions.

I strongly advise you to read this introduction to American nationalism, but all for the rest… very funny indeed.

Free market is not the new magic pill

free-marketIt’s funny to note how both the communist and the new wave of pro-European globalist share very similar views on most subjects. For instance, they both follow blindly the work of so-called economists that had very little real market experience (Marx for the Red, Hayek, Bastiat, Von Mises for the Blue). They’re also both eager to openly designate scrapegoats, the “invisible enemy” against whom we must all unite for the “greater good” even beyond American interests. And finally, they’re both also eager declare themselves outsiders, anti-system or anti-establishment.

Recently in our political debates, many conservative candidates have expressed views about a more open market, a free market if you will. Now free market doesn’t have to mean mere submission to the globalization of our economies as Ron Paul suggests, some markets can be very restricted yet very open to globalization (or even globalism) as California shows us.

Free market means a more open economy inside our borders, less governmental restrictions on businesses and business creation. Now as favorable as I am to this idea, our politicians and other leaders have now managed to turn what was once a genuinely good idea to a new masquerade of demagogy.

Politicians, and especially Ron Paul, seem not only to see free market as the new magic pill, but even as the only economic proposition. Free market is neither the new magic pill, there shouldn’t be any magic pills, neither should it be the only proposition of any decent candidate.

He seems to think that by allowing free market all the problems we face will be solved… well first of all that would imply that all are problems are economic, not political or ideological for example.

And secondly, where are all the other top free market countries in the world ? Once again, Ron Paul and the other liberal suckers are very good at scaffolding demagogic speeches, but as always they don’t translate in reality.

The two biggest exporters in the world, China and Germany, are also those who have some of the least free markets. The United States actually aren’t bad at all in terms of free market, ranking 6th on the 2011 economic freedom index. Germany is 25th and China 132th. Yet, we have the worst trade balance in the world, ranking 198th on… 198 countries. Note that the difference between the USA’s trade balance and the 197th is bigger than the difference between the 1rst and the 197th. If you have any experienced in statistics, you shall notice how fucked up that is.

But don’t forget that trade deficit is only the tip of the iceberg, the real consequences lie behind it : printing, taxing or borrowing money, reliance on foreign investments…

The top five countries with the best trade balance also have the least free markets : China, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, Russia (source: CIA world factbook).

Not only that, but most of the successful countries also have a lot of governmental involvement : over 50% of GDP for France, Belgium, Denmark, Russia. How can Ron Paul still advocate free market as the ultimate solution, the magic pill ?

Sure free market is beneficial, I’m not saying otherwise. But it all comes down to supply and demand, and there’s a very (very) simple equation that both Ron Paul and Marx seem to ignore : supply = demand. No more, no less.

How can there be a supply when all our goods or produced by foreigners in foreign countries ? How can there be a demand when our economy, like our politicians, is completely disconnected from the reality of the market by countless stimulus plans that involve printing, borrowing or relying on foreign investments ?

Free market and economic liberty are both stimulating factors for an economy, but under no condition should they be considered as “magic pills”. If the candidates believed in real liberalism (individual responsibility), they’d drop the magic pill speech altogether and leave that for Obama. But the truth is that neither Ron Paul nor any other candidate is any better than Obama to answer our current economic issue. As a matter of fact, most of our politicians don’t even want to answer them.

How will the USA pay for its trade deficit ?

trade deficitAmong the 2012 presidential debates that spread quickly and increasingly over this country, quite a few yet not as much as expected concern the economic situation of the United States of America.
Strangely enough, these same economic debates will have been characterized by two essentials elements : the overly pronounced taste for globalism of our candidates and the complete absence of solutions concerning the trade deficit.

For the first one, no real surprise you don’t step out of five decades of blatant ethnomasochism as easily. For the second characteristic on the other hand, even though I half expected it I must say I am nevertheless taken aback by the stupid of those who desire to govern us.

On the economic table,you might have witnessed a few lonely tirades about the public spending, and even less numerous interventions about the unemployment, which Ron Paul blames on the… FED. How original.

I truly have a hard time seeing how monetary creation, if that’s what Ron Paul reproaches to the FED in the first place, leads to unemployment since on the contrary, in the short term monetary creation will bring devaluation of the currency, and lead to more exports. It’s only in the long term that monetary creation can show its perverse effects, more on that later.

But aside from Ron Paul’s usual ramble, very few mentions to our current economic situation have been noticeable, like for example our record high trade deficit. It’s also funny to notice that we barely use the term “trade balance” anymore, only “trade deficit” implying that our balance couldn’t be positive.

Only once again, and if you dispose of whatever political experience or plainly common sense you may already have noticed, purposely ignoring an issue won’t make it fix itself. We’ve had proof for the public debt, the ethnomasochism, the anti-Americanism and countless other political experiments.

The truth about the trade deficit in America

Every candidate talks openly about such concepts as wealth redistribution and common wealth, but what they seemingly fail to notice is that to have any wealth to distribute you have to produce it first. And as we fail to produce any wealth, actually we lose some each day hence the term trade deficit, our economic system is only feeding on a smaller and smaller piece of cake : our past gains.

The only companies actually bringing money into the USA are the very old ones, often times the ones labelled as corporations by the mass media, and they are also believe or not the most taxed entities in this country.

But taxing our big companies is not and was never enough for our economic system not to collapse under the weight of the drag that is our American Business Model.

To substitute to our nonexistent and even hugely deficient production of wealth, there are three solutions.
1. Tax money
2. Print money
3. Borrow money

Needless to say that our government is applying all three of these, and rather ineffectively.

But don’t forget that Americans are sheep, and whole common wealth system is designed against them. In the long run that is.

The system is designed by essence for the supply to meet the demand by all needs necessary, disregarding our sovereignty and our long term national interests (the liberals always talk about collective interest, but what is more collective than our own nation I demand).

Americans are such sheep that as long as the supply meets the demand, or in this case the demands, they won’t protest. They all want the “miracle pill” to solve all our problems, and that’s exactly why charlatans such as Ron Paul can rise effortlessly on top of all political polls.
Americans aren’t lucid at all when it comes to political and economical decisions, and these democratic debates often turn out to be one way overbidding schemes.

– We aren’t producing enough wealth and bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just tax the rich and the companies. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.

– We can’t tax the rich anymore but still aren’t bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just borrow our money with massive interest rates from other countries, most of which openly consider themselves our enemies. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.

– We can’t borrow anymore money but still aren’t bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just print more money disregarding the issues linked to devaluation. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.

The candidate Ron Paul and several other conservatives have strongly opposed the concept of monetary creation, at least indirectly, and the “FED system”. Unsurprisingly, none of them has ever brought up the consequences of ending a system on which our whole economy is now dependent.

And for once in the history of the United States of Demagogy, there is a possibility that the supply won’t meet the demand, simply because there is no more supply. There are no more fake issues, “miracle pills”, Jesus-is-our-savior-he-will-fix-our-economy-vote-Santorum-2012, nonviable settlements, wrong answers and non-solutions to disconnect the American people from the market.
Our politicians believed they could just ignore the reality of economic war and the market altogether, but they are only just starting to see the consequences of fifty decades of internationalism and ethnomasochism.

Corporations should have a bigger voice in the White House

If you are trying to win an argument over politics in the United States, there are some advanced cheats you can easily use to discredit your opponent, such as calling him a fascist, a racist, a nationalist… or a pro-corporation. These cheats are so powerful that you can win any argument simply by using them, even against someone much more competent than you on political or economical subjects.

You see, in the middle of an unprecedented economic crisis, the massive trade deficit and public debt we face, and the continuously growing influence of the foreign and foreign interests in our own country, Americans are worried about corporations.
And by corporations, Americans don’t mean corporate lobbies, they just mean American corporations. Once again, demagogy became a convenient excuse for anti-Americanism.

That just proves to show that once more Americans are blaming scapegoats, and not any scapegoat because they are actually blaming the wealth creators and the only ones that draw money into the United States, as opposed to the very common American Business Model.

Many “Americans”, loyal adepts following the sheep mentality, have expressed their desire for corporations to have less voice in the White House. They even came up with a slogan, “Corporations are not people”. Some would argue that by doing that they are shooting themselves in the foot, since most of them are also supporters of famous anti-American lobbies, such as ecology, anti-racism or even globalism. Others would also argue that the priority would be to lessen the voice of the foreign out of our politics.

Some real questions arise from these clear demonstrations of demagogy and sheep mentality, including the following, should the corporations have a bigger or small voice inside the White House ?

First of all, supposing that we should lessen the voice of corporations/companies means that they already have some, which is clearly not the case. Have you ever heard of an act favoring American companies ? Sure the international socialist media might talk to you about SOPA/PIPA, but was it really a corporate issue ? Similar laws are effective in many other countries in the world (only more nationalist version), and have proven that such laws are more of a political issue.
Furthermore SOPA/PIPA don’t really favor American corporations since most musical labels and films distributors are foreign, and these laws don’t make distinction between the origin of any intellectual propriety (unlike their European equivalents for example).

Secondly, when is the last time Obama’s administration addressed an issue that American companies/entrepreneurs have to face ? Like social dumping, foreign protectionism, foreign nationalism, foreign economical imperialism, American ethnomasochism ? Even more consternating, when was the last time any president or political candidate had an open discussion with entrepreneurs, companies or any other wealth creator ? Despite them being very good at showing appalling doses of demagogy on public media, those facts alone exhibit their clear aversion for those that are actually bringing money in the USA.

Lastly, the anti-American media is very good at pointing out the supposed size of the corporations in our politics, but they forget that the entire American system is based on feeding off of these big corporations. The middle-class doesn’t export, neither do they bring money in the USA. The companies are the most taxed entities in this country, depriving them from political power would be not only stupid but also very hypocritical. The recent American government decisions were never pro-business, and much less pro-American business.

I honestly believe that more corporation voicing their views in the political debate can only be more beneficial.

Not only is it only fare that the biggest contributors to our economy have a bigger voice, but especially since they are close to being the only ones that actually know shit about the business world and political economy.

If I wanted to see unbiased global political economics brought to the political table and had a choice between :

  • Delusional politicians living in their fantasies incapable of seeing the facts of the market.
  • Unemployed hippies calling themselves the 99% and whining about the economic crisis.
  • Foreign news reporters writing about how globalism is good and how nationalism is bad, yet promoting the opposite in their respective countries.

…and actual companies that actually have real experience of how global economics work, I’d much rather have them inside a political debate.

In their political decisions American have for too long relied on principles, dreams, opinions, morals, ideas rather than on facts and on what actually works.

Ultimately, this is why the politicians that make the least amount of promises are always sanctioned. That tells you a lot about the voters, who at each election, will look for the person that says the most… without realizing that if he says so much, it’s because he doesn’t know shit.

Opinions and principles of our politicians are worthless, it’s time American stop the demagogy perpetuated by the media about what’s right to do, what’s ethical, what’s tolerant… and start looking at what works.

American multinational corporations, unlike most Americans, actually know what works and they also know what’s going on outside our borders. They actually know what discriminative laws they have to face when trying to implant themselves in this or that country, and also know that their foreign competitors don’t have to face these laws when implanting themselves in the USA.

I’d rather have them bring that to the political table then hear Santorum whining about Jesus or Ron Paul about torture.

The only way of seeing what works is to have actual global business experience. And actual global business experience comes from… reality, once again.

Not from Joe K. plumber since 1978 who thinks nationalism is bad because it’s “racist” and “intolerant”, not from Frank B. unemployed since always who thinks welfare is good because Obama said so, and certainly not from Jennifer A. writer for the Huffington Post who shares her political analysis every week yet learned about economy reading fucking cosmo.

Mitt Romney’s wife drives several Cadillacs

Following the perpetual ethnomasochism in our media, we now have instituted a new doctrine pairing with that : the cult of mediocrity.

It’s clear now, for those who still had any doubts, that the anti-American media’s only goal is to lead us straight to a soviet-like system, only very ethnomasochistic. In other words, they want Nationalsozialismus… without the National of course.

I don’t personally like Mitt Romney as a politician, and I certainly wouldn’t want him in the White House, but you have to respect what he has done for this country.
As CEO of Bain & Company he was credited for leading the firm out of crisis, and founded one of the biggest private equity investments companies in the world.
And not only did he enrich himself by bringing money into the United States, as opposed to the supporters of the American Business Model that do the exact opposite (Walmart anyone ?), he also chose to spend his money in a patriotic way, by buying not one but several American cars.

How dare he be rich ? That privilege should be reserved to the Foreign ! No American should be allowed to be wealthy, as that would mean less money for the Foreign invaders !
And not only did he acquire his wealth in a healthy way for our nation, as opposed to say public-spending profit-suckers, but now he also decides to spend it in a patriotic way ?

Such acts of blatant intolerance could only come from a nationalist, fascist, racist pornographer, intolerant child-rapist and maybe even a little antisemitic. Those acts go against everything propagandized by the media : worshiping the foreign.
That’s not demagogic / anti-American at all !
Buying American products ? What’s next, racial segregation ? Concentration camps ? He must be stopped at all costs !

He should of gave away all his money to the foreign the very second he earned it ! Or at least, he should of spent it promoting foreign films in our own nation !
How can a man aspire to be the next president of the United States, when he is not even capable of kneeling before the foreign colonization of our society !

He should of been proud to give his American money away to foreigners that despise Americans, and will probably never pay any taxes in this country.
He should of been proud to feed what’s left of American sovereignty to the European hegemony.

Did he even think of the consequences of his acts ? He could of helped an American company be more competitive and have more funds to spend on research, or even worse create more jobs in America !

No wonder the media is trying so hard to bring him down after that.

It’s stunning that the media would have more respect for a teacher (sucking public funds) that decides to buy Toyota or Volkswagen cars and then comes complaining about the “1%”, portraying him as the poor victim of modern society (bad banksters, bad government, bad America…), and exhibit successful and patriotic people such as Romney as the enemy.

Because in reality, we’d much rather send our precious and costly dollars to Martin in Germany or Carlos in France, which are very happy to receive them, rather than producing our own products and supporting our own economy, and maybe even sell our products to other countries that could give us their dollars for once.

What a pleasure it is for all Americans to participate in the wealth of countries that openly consider themselves our enemies, countries that apparently need our money more then we do despite the economical crisis we are floundering in.

What a pleasure it is for all Americans to enrich even more some already rich capitalists from all around the world that will never pay the slightest tax in America, and that probably vote for nationalist and anti-American political parties in their respective countries.

What a pleasure it is, finally, for all Americans to know that countries that openly promote anti-Americanism in all its forms will retrieve an increasing share of our wealth.

It’s so much better to “work” a 9-5 job sucking money out of the commonwealth, forcing our government to borrow or print our salaries directly from the Fed, then give it all away to our enemies while complaining that the government is screwing us up.

Americans already had a serious problem with ethnomasochism, but if we add to that the growing cult of mediocrity, I can clearly state it : we are fucked.

The American Business Model

American Business ModelWant to know an easy way to destroy the healthiest and most powerful economy in the world and turn it into a mere import market highly dependent on governmental stimulus with the highest trade deficit in the world ? Easy, try the American Business Model.

While in the rest of the world, regular economies are based on a cooperative patriotic model that we will call “regular model” for short, we in America being very ethnomasochist have developed what is called the American Business Model.

The purpose of this American Business Model, advocated by multiple political personalities such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Ron Paul, is to screw Americans out of business, weaken our economic security, destroy our financial independence as well as our sovereignty, and all in the name of less profit.

Yes you heard me right, you will have LESS profit than if you followed the traditional cooperative patriotic model, the regular model if you will. The beauty of the American Business Model is that it’s so ahead of the curve that it will give you as least profit as possible while effectively ruining your country.
Of course, the American Business Model comes in pair with ethnomasochism, concept which has, I believe, vastly inspired it.

American Business Model vs Regular Model

For the rest of this article, we will use the examples of Walmart and its foreign competitors to illustrate the power, or lack of, the American Business Model over the regular model.
In the process of selling goods, for example in a retail store like Walmart, there are three factors to into account. These three factors represent each financial transfer, and are of course the production costs, the transfer costs and the purchasing costs.

The first one involves the costs of the production at the factory. It’s beneficial for the workers and their country, not so much for the factory that produces the goods.
The second involves the retail store buying from the factory. The cost is higher than the one of the production, so it’s beneficial for the factory, not so much for the retail store.
The third involves the customer buying from the retail store. The cost is higher than the one of the transfer, so it’s beneficial for the retail store, not so much for the customer.

All this to learn that the customer is losing money when he buys something, but the customer can become a worker himself. I added “and their country” on the first case, but virtually it’s beneficial for the country of anyone winning money so it also applies for the other two. Simultaneously, we could argue that it’s detrimental for the countries of the buyers who lose money on their purchases.

In the regular business model, let’s take the example of a retail store of a foreign country F. If the CEO of this store wants to make money by selling goods, he needs to have these goods produced first.
1. Usually he will address a local manufacturing company, in the same country F, and start selling to the local market. For the moment, there are only financial transfers inside the country F, F is neither benefiting neither losing from these transfers.
2. If he wants more money, he will try to export the goods to the rest of the world. This means more money for the retail store, and more money for the manufacturing company because they will have more commands. The country F is exponentially beneficial, because they “win” not only from the retail stores income but also from the factory’s labor.

Now let’s have a look at the American business model. The CEO of a retail store in the USA wants to make money by selling products.
1. Being a good ethnomasochist he will try to outsource to a manufacturing company in a foreign country and start selling on his local market, the US market. For the moment, there are only unilateral financial transfers from the USA to the foreign where the factory is located.
2. If he wants more money, he won’t try to export. He will try to find more foreign and “exotic” products to bring to the US market, even more losses for the USA. There being a constant stimulus of money from the Fed in many forms, there will always be enough money on the US territory, only its weakening even more our economy.

I took the example of Walmart because they serve as a good example, but there are even more extreme cases of the American Business Model.
But take Walmart and its competitor Carrefour, which is french. Walmart imports products from China and sells to exhaustion to the US market and a few other markets. Carrefour sells almost exclusively French made products around the world, even to China.

As long as American companies continue with this unsustainable business model,
As long as American companies search to bring foreign products into the US market instead of trying to export US products,
As long as American companies, in order to make more money, will try to make product cheaper instead of trying to export,
the United States will continue down the same road.

They all want change

2012 changeDespite the current economic recession in which we flounder cheerfully, most Americans are more concerned with seeing who will be next anti-American buffoon to “represent” them at the White House.
Despite the growing public debt, the massive trade deficit with every other country in the world, the ethnomasochism in our society and the idolatry of foreign cultures reaching never ending heights, the Americans really believe that a mere change in governance will solve their problems.

A bit more on the trade deficit. If you followed the news two weeks ago, you may have noticed that our trade deficit has nearly reached $600 billion with the world for 2011 alone, including a $300 billion trade deficit with China. An obvious result nevertheless.
Notice that in America we don’t even speak of “trade balance” anymore but simply “trade deficit”, unconsciously implying that our trade balance couldn’t be positive.

Now back to our politicians. Since Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign, every since presidential candidate wants “change”. Granted that’s the basis of a candidacy, but this message has only been reinforced since Obama’s campaign.

Every single candidate from the Republicans to the Democrats have the same expectations : more jobs, more buying power, better lifestyles,etc…
But in reality, none is taking any action or even proposing any solution towards any “change”.

Basically, they are proposing the exact same politics as for the last forty years and expecting it to work out different for some random reason. What’s the old saying, “do what you as you always did and get what you always got” ?

What the politicians are actually meaning when are proposing the SAME INEFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS as for the last four decades, is that they don’t want real “change”, they just want the same consequences as for the last four decades.
And I quote : delocalizations, trade deficits, ethnomasochism, anti-Americanism, poor buying power.

I have a serious hard time believing how Ron Paul, or any other media-built “savior”, will change anything when he is proposing the same thing as for the last forty, or even fifty years.
As I said in my previous article, small government and debt reduction isn’t all. Fighting socialism isn’t everything there is.

Take countries like China, Japan, Germany, South Korea. They are a lot more government dependent than the USA, and have more jobs, more buying power (yes even China), less trade deficit, and obviously not the typical American (or anti-American ?) ethnomasochism.
They produce more, they export more (proportionally), live better, have a lot more buying power, and typically do the opposite of what Ron Paul advocates.
Even most European countries, which pay up to 300% more taxes than in America (multiple taxes on income, VAT…) and have the Euro burden produce more than us and bring in more income than us.

I’m not saying every proposition of Ron Paul or any other politician is bad, just that they are no solutions to the bigger problems, bigger problems that are intentionally evaded.

If Americans want real lasting “change” for the better, simply stop the idolatry of the Foreign : foreign cultures, foreign tourism and especially foreign products like foreign films.

Small government and debt reduction isn’t all

Public Debt in USAIn some of my more recent posts, including Ron Paul the most hypocritical candidate, I strongly criticized Ron Paul for being yet another “miracle elixir” charlatan when addressing to the masses. I also criticized him for finding easy scapegoats to blame and for distorting the liberal/libertarian message.

At the beginning of the 2008 economic crisis, precisely during the Paulson Plan, the bailout stimulus and at the peak of the socialist “Yes we can” campaigns, I correctly predicted that the public opinion would change from socialism to “liberalism”.

I will go deeper into this in subsequent articles, but the point is that the change of political direction of the masses was fairly predictable. But if on the surface the political opinions have changed, it’s really both sides of the same coin.
Socialism was simply running out of “miracle pills” for all society issues, so logically “liberalism” took over.
When I say “liberalism”, I am referring to Ron Paul’s propaganda, sort of based on liberalism… on the surface.

The problems in the United States are not so much political than ideological. Going from international socialism to international “ronpaulism” (sorry I really can’t associate liberalism or libertarianism to his policies) is not really what we need.
Sure it’s better to have an ethnomasochist government that’s not in debt and doesn’t fuck with our currency rather than an ethnomasochist government that does, but the core problems are still here.

The masses went from international socialism to international ronpaulism, thinking of it as a major change in our politics.
They went from :

  • cheering “Yes we can” to cheering “End the Fed”
  • seeing the “rich” as the cause of all our problems to seeing the “government” as the cause of all our problems (scapegoating)
  • defending foreign interests by bailouts and international aids to defending the foreign by non-interventionism
  • etc…

Notice that every scapegoat found for our problems has to be American (corporates, governments, the American rich class), otherwise you are labelled as racist.
Even the 9/11 attacks are blamed by the Americans on other Americans, since they are so scared of conflicting the foreign.

And if in appearance Ron Paul’s message seems liberal, it’s not.
I can’t stress this enough but liberalism means individual responsibility.
Is finding scapegoats a responsible attitude ? Blaming the government for everything (I never thought I would defend the government some day) ?

Ron Paul simply chose a few parts of liberalism that seemed appealing to the masses, such as the opposition to statism (that Ron Paul incorrectly distorts into the opposition of our government), debt reduction (which should be mandatory for every politician by now), low taxes and non-interventionism.
He added a good dose of ethnomasochism and foreign loving propaganda for it to be even more demagogic, and based his whole political program on those ideas.

But as stated in the title, those ideas aren’t everything. Neither the government nor the debt caused our huge trade deficit (granted that governmental intervention might contribute to extend it), neither the government nor the debt caused massive delocalizations, unemployment and foreign outsourcing, neither the government nor the debt caused ethnomasochism and the cult of the foreign.

Ron Paul is just another miracle pills selling hippie, just as Obama, Bush and all the internationalists that value foreign interests above American interests. He simply chose to changed his message to fit the “new-age” public opinion.

What the United States of America need is a serious nationalist candidate, with serious liberal propositions. We don’t have fifty solutions anyway.
A balanced budget is a requirement, but it’s definitively not a solution. Don’t confuse means and ens.