Government, Graft, Geneivah and Gornisht

Four Mental Images That Immunize Sensible People — But Not Economists — Against Keynesian Economics

Gary North

March 8, 2010

 

Four images provide the conceptual tools to refute Keynesian economics: the gun, the wallet, the IOU, and the printing press. Recall them every time you read a Keynesian promotion of the latest government spending plan. Let me explain.

Think of yourself as engaged in a public debate. If you want to undermine an intellectual opponent in a debate, find his system’s central weak point and latch onto it like a bulldog. Never let it go. Make sure the audience leaves the debate with your refutation in their minds.

In preparing for a debate, remember this principle of effective communication: “It is easier to forget a formula than a mental image.”

Academic economists love formulas. This is their great vulnerability. Unlike formulas in physics, economists’ formulas conceal profound conceptual errors that simple mental images reveal as utter nonsense. The average person can readily comprehend these errors through the use of simple mental images. But academic economists are deliberately trained in graduate school to ignore these images. They are easily blinded by formulas. This puts them at a disadvantage in public debate, especially when debating members of the one school of economics that does not use formulas: Austrian School economics. I will now offer a demonstration of this principle of debate.

KEYNESIANISM’S CENTRAL FORMULA

The account of Keynesian economics on Wikipedia is a good place to begin. Here, we read of the textbook Keynesian formula:

In scientific notation, the Keynesian Formula consists of the following make-up:

C + I + G + X – M = Y(GDP)
which means:

Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Exports – Imports = Gross Domestic Product

This is standard stuff. Start here.

Spending is the heart of Keynesian economics — aggregate spending. Consumption (C) is a series of society-wide individual allocation decisions. Investment (I) is a series of society-wide individual allocation decisions. Exports (X) are a series of society-wide individual allocation decisions. It is the same for imports.

Government spending is an allocation decision of a different kind. “See this gun? See where it is pointed? Hand over your wallet.”

The student can see that total spending is based on all the letters of the formula. C, I, X, and M all begin with the original owners of resources. But G does not begin with the original owners. G begins with the new owner after multiple transactions with the gun.

G does not create. G confiscates. G cannot spend anything that it did not extract from consumers or investors.

C, I, X, and M are based on production. They are creative forces. G is based on confiscation. It is not a creative force. Everything spent by G comes at the expense of C, I, X, or M . When G spends, it does so at the expense of the others.

A bright student is smart enough to figure out what most people do when constantly threatened with robbers with guns, even if the robbers carry badges. They will not put all of their money in their wallets. They will hide some of their currency. They will not spend it. People who carry badges and guns call this currency hoarding. This is a Very Bad Thing, we are assured.

BORROWING FROM PETER TO SUBSIDIZE PAUL

Here is where Keynes came to the rescue of governments everywhere. He has the government offer to write IOU’s that pay interest. “Put away the guns. Write IOU’s.”

Only very clever students will ask these two obvious questions:

1. Where will the government get the money to pay off the loans with interest?2. Where will people get the money to lend to the government?

The politicians’ answers to the first question is easy: (1) we will hire more men with badges and guns; (2) we will write more IOU’s. But these are not answers. They are variations of kick the can.

Then Keynes added this: “print more money.” He specifically taught that real wages would fall along with purchasing power in times of price inflation. Labor union members would accept these lower wages, he taught. This would lead to greater employment: lower wages mean more labor demanded. He implicitly assumed that labor union members are stupid, and so are the economists they hire to negotiate.

What about the second question? Where will lenders get the money? Keynes’ answer made superficial sense in world back when people hoarded gold (United States) or currency (everywhere else). That was true prior to the FDIC (1934). After 1934 in the USA, the argument made no sense. Currency hoarders started to deposit their money in banks. The banks then lent this money. Henceforth, the government could write lots of IOU’s and run large deficits, but the money it received as loans came from the bank accounts of lenders. The borrowers at the banks of these lenders would be shut out.

Aggregate spending would not change. Keynesian theory collapses.

Even in the first case — currency hoarding — the argument made no economic sense in 1933. When prices fall in response to hoarding — an increased demand for currency — the currency gets spent. Sellers say: “Have I got a deal for you!” Former hoarders spend. If prices are flexible downward — and in a free market, they are — then government does not need to write IOU’s to get people spending again. It needs to remove legal restrictions on making good deals: tariffs, quotas, and price floors.

Once a student understands this, the teacher can move from logic to rhetoric: persuasion through imagery.

SUBSTITUTE IMAGES FOR FORMULAS

Here is the Wiki entry for government spending.

Government spending or government expenditure consists of government purchases, which can be financed by seigniorage, taxes, or government borrowing. It is considered to be one of the major components of gross domestic product.John Maynard Keynes was one of the first economists to advocate government deficit spending as part of a fiscal policy to cure an economic contraction. In Keynesian economics, increased government spending is thought to raise aggregate demand and increase consumption.

Here, I suggest the following. Ask the question again: “How does the government get the money out of the lenders’ wallets or bank accounts without reducing their spending?”

Keep mentioning the wallet. People understand wallets. They do not really understand formulas. Keep mentioning the printing press. They understand counterfeiting.

The student should always have a mental image of a gun, a wallet, an IOU, and a printing press. A formula does not convey knowledge effectively. A mental picture does. People forget formulas faster than they forget mental pictures.

The heart of Keynesian is economics is here: the attribution of autonomous economic productivity to the agency with the gun. Somehow, government can increase aggregate spending (1) without producing anything new and (2) without reducing spending somewhere else in the economy. Keynes never explained how this is possible. Neither have his disciples.

Here is the heart of the the Keynesian error: “G can be increased without subtracting from C, I, X, and M.” It is easy to show this from the formula. But it’s still a formula. Try to turn the formula into a mental image.

Tell the student, “When you see G, think ‘gun.'” This mental image undermines the authority of the formula.

A grifter is a con man who uses fake promises as a way to scam victims. If more students knew what a grifter is, you could say: “When you see G, think ‘gun,’ ‘grifter,’ and ‘graft.'”

The student thinks, “This can’t be all there is to Keynesian economics.” But it is. He thinks, “Someone would have pointed this out in 1936 if this were all there is to it.” Hardly anyone did. The few who did were not believed after 1948, the year Paul Samuelson’s Economics textbook was published.

How could this be the case? Because of what George Orwell observed in 1946, the same year that Keynes died. “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

Be the child at the parade, crying out: “The emperor has no clothes.” Start with the simplest explanation — visual — at the heart of Keynes’ colossal error. Don’t let go.

Start with the gun, the wallet, the IOU, and the printing press. The formula is merely window dressing for economists.

From Gary North, here.

Communitarianism Has Even More Syllables Than Libertarianism!

Communitarianism 

A philosophy associated with thinkers such as Burke and Rousseau, which opposes the individualism of liberal political theory embodied in such thinkers as Hobbes and Locke. Whereas liberals stress the primacy of the “unencumbered” self and individual rights, communitarians see individual identity as socially embedded and stress responsibility for the common good. Habits of the Heart (1985), by Robert Bellah and his colleagues, is an exemplary sociological study based on communitarian premises. Walzer (1990:6) notes that historically the communitarian critique of liberalism has been “like the pleating of trousers: transient but certain to return.”

Continue reading

From The Encyclopedia of Religion and Society, here.

Know Your Enemy: Esav Is on the March!

Esau’s Threat: Judeo-Christian Values Revisited

י״ב לחודש השלישי תשע״ז

This was posted on Facebook:

Esser Agaroth (2¢):
Judeo-Christian values? Really? You can read here to know what I think about so-called Judeo-Christian Values.

One commenter on this post even suggested that…

It is CIVILIZATION against BARBARISM.

No. It’s not. It’s Torah against anti-Torah. And, yes, distorted Torah is anti-Torah. As the Ramba”m states:

 שלושה הן הכופרים בתורה: … והאומר שהבורא החליף מצוה זו במצוה אחרת, וכבר בטלה תורה זו, אף על פי שהיא הייתה מעם ה’, כגון הנוצריים וההגריים. כל אחד משלושה אלו כופר בתורה. (משנה תורה, הל׳ תשובה ג,יז)

Three [types] are the deniers of the Torah: … And the one who says that the Creator replaced this commandment with a different commandment, and that this Torah was already nullified, even though it was from The Almighty, such as the Christians and the descendants of Hagar. Each of these three denies the Torah. (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Repentance 3:17)

Esau (the West – Malbi”m) are not our friends.

There isn’t any quantitative difference in the threats/dangers between Esau and Yishmael (Arabs/Muslims), only qualitative. Esau’s weapons and strategies (eg. smiles, money, lying, tricks) are simply different than those of Yishmael’s. Esau’s descendants are not our friends.

The Kiss of Esau

And Esau’s kiss IS his bite. (Gerer Rebbe) Thus, the trickiness of Esau. He has many faces. Just as he adapted his strategies to conquer his brother Ya’aqov, Esau’s spiritual descendants have adapted their strategies to conquer Ya’aqov’s descendants.

Do not forget that one of the eventual goals of Esau is to take the Land of Israel which it believes is rightfully his (theirs). The Vatican is acquiring parts, as are the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches.

The Evangelicals, as well as those who have “evolved” beyond that have been sneaking into Israel left and right, with the goal of staying, attempting to blend in with “settler” appearing clothing, and by “volunteering” to work the Land.

There are even those of Esau’s descendants who have invented a recent movement, fake Israelites (Christians calling themselves “Ephraimites”), as a way of getting a foothold on our Land.

Continue reading

From Essser Agaroth, here.

Bringing Back the Cursedian Threat – Only Rabbis Can Do It!

No Strings Attached?

More dangerous than the Muslim conquest.

Moshe Feiglin, 03/08/08
“He has recently become more religious,” the reporters explained as they described the second Jerusalem Muslim who attempted to murder Jews with a tractor.

The Israeli public is already used to terror attacks in the name of Allah. These attacks are euphemistically described as “nationalistically motivated.” But everybody knows in whose name the terrorists stage their murderous assaults. The Arabs who piloted the Boeing jets into the Twin Towers did not yell “Long live Saudi Arabia!” and last week’s murderous tractor driver did not declare “Long live the Arab nation!” before perpetrating their horrendous deeds. Every Israeli knows what Arabs shout as they murder.

They shout the Muslim motto, Allah hu akbar. They act in the name of their god. Their terrorism is not nationalistically motivated. It is religiously motivated.

As opposed to the Left, the nationalist camp – and especially the national religious camp in Israel – is capable of understanding and dealing with this fact. But it is specifically this camp that is rapidly falling under the influence of a religious threat even more dangerous than Islam. It is specifically the nationalist and religious nationalist public that has been opening the door to Christianity and allowing it to slowly but surely sway Israeli reality.

The Christian conquest is much more dangerous than the Muslim conquest because it is not direct. It is not violent. It is embracing and supportive. It connects with Israel against the Muslim enemy. It supports a Jewish Land of Israel in its entirety. It even speaks up for the sanctity of the connection between the Nation of Israel, the Land of Israel and the Torah of Israel. It just forgets to mention to which Nation of Israel and to which Torah it refers.

The nationalist public is not aware of the extent and depth of the influence that these groups have achieved in Israel. It is very easy to be enticed by the fact that they hide their motives and offer large sums of money to causes that are important, and often crucial, for Israel.

It took me a bit of time to realize their true intentions, and in the meantime, I also received a small number of contributions from Christian factors. They insinuated that they were Noahides – non-Jews who have accepted the seven commandments that G-d gave to Noah, which negate Christianity. They declared that they were not part of any church and that the crucifix offends them. They simply forgot to mention that for them, G-d is actually the Christian deity and that the Nation of Israel is actually those who believe in that deity. Thank G-d, it took me a relatively short time to figure out what was going on and I cut off all ties with them.

They are careful to hide their true intentions. They will not usually display the crucifix and will not mention the name of their deity in conversation with Jews. They simply “love” us – “no strings attached.” But their goal is clear: to immigrate to Israel by the millions, to become citizens and to convert us all, G-d forbid. They do explicitly admit that as far as they are concerned, a Jew who does not accept their deity will burn in hell.

On the surface, why should we care? What difference does it make if huge sums of money for Israeli welfare causes are from Christian sources? “When Mashiach comes, we’ll ask him what religion he is,” the cynics wink. But this is not a matter that can be laughed off. Money talks. The organizations that feed the hungry children of Israel will eventually control their minds, as well.

Slowly but surely, more and more Christian institutions are being built in Israel. They have infiltrated almost every Jewish organization. And most worrisome of all, they have infiltrated the political Right. Acting MKs and candidates for the Knesset from all the rightist parties have been busy running to their churches in the US, hugging the most despicable missionaries and giving their activities in Israel and their beliefs the legitimacy so crucial to their success. Big money from these groups has been blinding the eyes of many Likud candidates, as well as Orange MKs and rabbis, and strictly kosher Hareidi rabbis, as well.

It is hard to blame the Likud candidates for taking their money. If well-known rabbis and MKs with large skullcaps and beards see nothing wrong with Christian support, then why should the less religiously knowledgeable Likudnik be more stringent than they are?

These Christians have been waiting 2,000 years for their messiah to arrive. They certainly have the patience to position more and more politicians who owe them their seats in key slots in Israel. Missionary activity in Israel is growing by leaps and bounds. But what mayor or politician will fight the missionaries after they have received millions from the very same “Israel-loving” organizations?

It is astounding how a history of 2,000 years of bloodshed evaporates in the face of large sums of cash. The children of Beit El will not pay the price of this abomination any time soon. The price will first be paid by the children in poor neighborhoods and in families whose Jewish identity is not well developed.

But every Jew is responsible for one another. If we do not open our eyes and reject these Christian groups and their money, we will all pay the price.

חיבת הארץ

יניב בן משיח – ארץ ישראל | yaniv ben mashiach

Published on Aug 20, 2014

יניב בן משיח העמוד הרשמי בפייסבוק: https://www.facebook.com/ybmashiach
אינסטגרם: http://instagram.com/yaniv.ben.mashiach

להזמנות אירועים y.b.m הפקות יעקב 050-9045310
יחסי ציבור: זיו תקשורת ויחסי ציבור 03-6555181 | pr@zivpr.co.il

מילות השיר:

את היקרה לי תמיד מכולן באים אלייך מכל העולם כל טוב הארץ ושפע קיים את יותר ממושלם.
שם אל מול ההר קם משה להנהיג גזרת האל הוא קיבל והבליג ולא זכה את יופייך לקבל כמה שהתפלל.

אך אנחנו כן קיבלנו את הזכות לחזק לכבד להחזיק אבותינו סיפרו לנו כמה קשה אותך להשיג

המשך לקרוא

מאתר יוטיוב, כאן.