Colonialism is not a form of free market, but a form of central planning. In fact, large socialist countries were / are indeed run like a colonial empire: with commissioners / commissars / governors appointed from above instead of being selected by local elections.
Likewise, crony banking under the central banking system is not at all free market, but the 5th plank of the 10 planks proposed by the "Communist Manifesto" itself.
Non violence is not a tool, but a choice; Government is a tool, for some people to control others, and it can be and usually is used by others against you! Think about that for a moment. Here is an interesting article on a form of government by choice as opposed to the continental mentality of pyramidal slavery system espoused by people from continental cultures:
The famines that killed tens of millions in the USSR and China were not at all caused by wars. The one in the USSR took place in the late 1920's. The Soviet regime had been well established by then. In fact, it was precisely the political "omnipotence" of the Soviet regime that made "collectivization" possible, to the extent that the regime was able to starve tens of millions of people after robbing them of food: it was the lower and middle rank cadres in thorough control of the country side who violently collected all the food because they did not at all need local political support but only answerable to their superiors in an idealized pyramid management system.
Likewise, the same thing happened in Communist China in the late 1950 ' s to early 1960's. Once again, it had nothing to do with war, but thorough top-down control of the population by the regime and it's pyramid of bureaucrats who did not need local support from below but only answerable to their superiors in the centralized power structure.
Bureaucrats lie. When they lied about food output in order to meet the quotas set by their superiors, the local people starved in droves. The biggest famines had nothing to do with war or disease or weather, but everything to do with abuse of power and the centralization fantasy.
It made economic sense for British to maintain a global empire in the first 3/4 of 19th century, simply because there was little challenge from anyone else. German challenge in thr late 19th century and then later American challenge made it cost ineffective to maintain an empire. The cost of building all those battleships of the late 19th and early 20th century exceeded the profit from monopolizing certain trade routes.
As for resistance from natives, the extreme end of push-overs were the Americans and Russians, whose continental empires faced largely ineffectual resistance and there were enough settlers to fill the "vacuum." Somewhat to a lesser degree, the British had the earlier and easier bites where the local resistance were minimal until they ran into the major colonial wars in India and South Africa against Dutch settlers.
The continental powers of Europe, like France and Germany, never had a good economic case for overseas colonies. Their overseas adventures were largely political reaction to British success, and were largely white elephant projects due to British already had the first - mover advsntage.
As for Churchill, he was more responsible for the destruction of British Empire than anyone else: by warring beyond means during both WWI and WWII.
Of course non-violence is one choice among many, just happen to be a superior choice in situations where the opponents can equally be convinced that using violence to maintain power and privilege would only lead to subpar outcome.
Choosing violence, by either party, is essentially a choice for escalation of conflict. That is usually not a good choice for either party if the end goal is a peaceful and prosperous society restored. Non-violence does not mean giving up the right of self defence.
You are welcome to search my posting history yourself. Unless there has been server data loss, my advocacy for further optimization by buying multi-family buildings instead of single family houses should be there. As well as my prescient thoughts on why I didn't think it was a good idea to give out my name or building addresses, despite your attempts to bully me, several months before Roberto faced the problem due to publicity.
I believe you and I had a similar argument back in 2013 when you challenged me to prove I was indeed buying multi-family buildings and renovating them to rent out. I showed you pictures of piles of plumbing components that were being readied to be installed into my buildings.
Most people don't accumulate a $mil in wealth until their 40's and 50's. The statistics cited is showing the value of degrees 20 years ago.
Also, the higher degree earners are also more likely to be married ( or can't afford to divorce, due to the predictability of the degreed income and its ramifications on child support and alimony). Therefore, the household wealth number is showing that of a larger household with more income earners.
There is indeed correlation between degrees and income/wealth, but not nearly as strong as the way the statistics was cited. Also, the club of Billionaires is heavily over- represented by college drop-outs. So, the statistical advice is to stay in school if you want to be well off (especially if you can get a degree from 20 years ago with low cost and low competition; i.e. get a time machine first), but drop out of college if you want to be really rich! LOL.
There are people who have done better than Iwog or Roberto. In case you forgot, I was advocating multi-family buildings in 2012 if not earlier during the crash. I was also telling them why I did not want to disclose my identity (despite their challenges) months before what happened to Roberto took place.
I saved about half a million between 2005 and 2011 by renting (compared to buying a house similar to the one I rented), and since the bottom in 2011-12 I have doubled on the buildings that I bought with cash and far more than doubled on the buildings that involved leverage.
We shall see what the coming years will bring. Iwog is predicting massive crash in the next couple years, I think there is a rebalancing coming: crash for the mega million hot spots, but good returns in the zones that are 50 miles or so further out. You can book mark this prediction.
Exactly, Rin. Economics determined that it didn't pay to run an empire, expecially when there are challengers. All the British colonies were headed towards independence and self-government simply because the cost of administration would be lower.
Ghandi's peaceful approach provided a route for the emergence of a political leadership that can continue the overseeing of trade and division of labor after indpendence. The violent alternatives would be a pointless exercise in terms of evicting the British. The communal violence between two ethnic groups after the British exit was fighting for a different set of competing interests altogether.
With attitudes like that, you and people like you deserve to be ruled by the scums like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
No, most of the 100 million did not die during wars. In fact, war deaths were excluded from the count. The 100 million was peace time death count; far more people died under those regimes during peace time than during the wars. The enormous famines in those countries starving tens of millions of people were direct results of their misrule: called "collectivization."
It was not a co-incidence that scums like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot would rise to power in those countries steeped in worshipping "might makes right." "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolute, and most great men were evil men." -- Lord Acton.
In a system that promotes concentration of power through excessive violence, at the expense of self determination by smaller geographical entities and individuals, only the scums rise to the top.
I was making the quantitative difference argument in opposite direction of Stalin. A few deaths is a tragedy, thousands of deaths is criminal mass murder. You on the other hand seemed to copy the Stalin argument that thousands of deaths is government business as usual; perhaps it is, but only in the sense that many governments in human history were little more than criminal enterprises, not as exculpatory defense of crimes committed by certain government officials.
Mark Twain made his observation before he had a chance to witness the institutionalized mass murders of the 20th century. He made the critical logical error that many 20th century revolutionaries made: the accelerated killings of a revolutionary new order is not a temporary price to pay for prolonged peace and prosperity to follow, but merely a down payment or even the first installment of prolonged period of accelerated state mass murders! The notorious Star Chamber during the Inquisition killed about 1000 people during its entire existence of 150+ years; whereas the 20th century revolutionaries fed on the illogical revolutionary zeal killed more than 1000 every day on average for the entire century, totaling up a death toll of over 100,000,000 deaths by socialist governments in one century.
Your tendency to use pre-modern atrocity in England and France as justification for 20th century war crimes is very problematic. We all have ancestors murdered someone at some point and were cannibals. That does not at all justify mass murder and cannibalism in modern society.
Zhukov did mellow considerably during the course of WWII. By the time he met up with allied commanders on the Elbe, he was quite an affable guy paying close attention to troop discipline in occupied central Europe. I will grant you that.
IIRC, Sharia laws also forbid television because it makes images of human beings. . . That begs the question how the ISIS produces those video footage and put them on the internet? How can their followers even be allowed under their rule to watch those video footages? How did they square that circle?
Obviously you did not understand the real multiplication factor. Nor did you understand that reserve requirement does not apply to time deposit.
Frankly, demand deposit as it is carried out in fractional reserve banking is classic commercial fraud: pyramid scheme. Under 100% reserve requiremrnt, banking can continue by paying interest on term deposit, while charging storage fee on demand deposit. Voila, run on the bank is avoided.
I don't have "our team" vs. "their team" bias; I don't consider what you consider "same shit" as "same shit."
1. Zhukov and Stalin were on "our team." Both were immensely beneficial to US interests. Zhukov proved to be an outstanding logistician and tactician in the war against Nazis ( and Japanese Kwangtung Army before that). Stalin's "socialism in one country" policy was highly beneficial to the US and to the people of the rest of the world outside of the USSR, compared to his archenemy Trotsky advocating worldwide revolution. However, none of that change the fact that they were all mass murderers against their fellow Russian people.
2. I'm not familiar with Bedford Forrest or Fort Pillow that you alleged. I did not address them previously because I was not familiar with them. The shelling of Fort Sumter was hardly atrocity: it was a symbolic shelling that was calculated to minimize casualty and indeed resulted in no death!
3. You citation of Whiskey Rebellion (where 4 people were killed during accidental confrontations) and Fort Sumter (where nobody was killed) as ways of exculpaing the killing of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people by some dictatorships makes me all the more reluctant to even talk about the alleged atrocities that you bring up that I'm not familiar with as the ones that I am familiar with that you mentioned are not anywhere remotely close to "same shit" as you allege.
4. Perhaps you were brought up in the former USSR brain washed by the Soviet propaganda from a young age, where a slap of the wrist on "Their team" is cited as atrocity and "same shit" as the killing of millions of people on "our team." It's not your personal fault to have been exposed and suffer from "common sense is nothing more than prejudice instilled before the age of 16."
5. It's a good idea for you to take some time re-examine some of the historical incidents from a quantitative perspective. Massive quantitative difference makes for qualitative difference. They are not the "same shit."
6. It's silly to blame Bolshevik violence entirely on Czarist despotism. While Nicholas II executed less than a couple hundred people during his multi-decade reign, the Reds executed millions! They are literally not on the same order of magnitude, or even neighboring orders of magnitude with each other.
7. Numerically, the vast majority of the victims of Bolshevik murderous rampage were actually their own former comrades. Many of them were both perpetrators and victims. The Russian experience of the early 20th century should have made it quite clear that there are few winners in a political movement where the violent wing take the leadership.
Control Point beat me to the punch explaining how the math works with depositing into the same bank.
Also, reserve requirement is for on-demand deposits. The requirement does not apply to timed deposits. So the idea that 100% reserve requirement would stop baking is not valid. It would not stop banking, but would stop fraud: promising on-demand that can not possibly be cashed out when even as little as more than 1 in 10 want the on-demand money cashed out. Bank panic is the direct result of such a fraudulent promise.
Not sure what your issue is. The colonial war in the Philippines after the Spanish-American War was one of the dark chapters in American history. OTOH, the voluntary US plan for a free and independent Philippines before WWII was one of the earliest voluntary granting of independence to former colonies in the 20th century.
Czarist violence against Jews was one of the reasons for its eventual downfall. OTOH, the Red Czars proved to be far worse than the Romanovs, to the Russians, Ukrainians and Jews alike in the former USSR.
Your perchance for exculpaing mass murderers on account of other mass murderers is frankly quite dissappointing. If that attitude is representative of the new generation of Russians, they may well deserve to be ruled by mass murderers for some time yet to come.
Sherman was a mass murderer, and war criminal. Your assumption that his action should be condoned is quite wrong.
Sadam did not deserve special consideration for being against our common enemy either. He was eventually hanged, with the earlier gas attack cited as one of the charges against him.
Neither should Stalin and Zhukov be exculpatory from the mass murder on account of later fighting against our common enemy the Nazis. Nor should Tukachevski, who carried out Stalin ' s command and led Zhukov into the mass murder of Russian peasants, despite himself being liquidated by Stalin a few years later.
It is simply wrong to worship mass murder as expedient solution. Most of the Soviet officers who engaged in the Tambov mass murder had their come-uppance shortly thereafter. It doesn't pay to engage in the pay of a mass murdering "leader."
During the entire Whiskey Rebellion, only 4 people died, and under circumstances of rebels besieging tax collector's and US Marshall ' s homes/posts; i.e. can be argued as self defense. How is that remotely comparable to the Soviet Red bandits "scorched earth" mass murdering approach poison gas bombing of entire villages and forests leading to over 200,000 deaths?
Not many people were killed during the Shay ' s Rebellion and Whiskey Rebellion. Besides, the brief fighting was already done by the time George Washington got involved. Btw, Washington's position on the rebellion was wrong, because he was misinformed by his friends with close ties to the banksters.
Sadam Hussein was obviously a mass murderer. Just because the US supplied weapons to Stalin during WWII to fight Nazis did not make Stalin less of a mass murderer. Likewise, Sadam having dealings with the west doesn't make him less of a mass murderer.
Zhukov had personal front - line involvement in the "liquidation" of peasants trying to defend their own harvest against Red mobs trying to confiscate the food. The suppression of Tambov Uprising involved in the use of poison gas for several months, and resulted in over 200,000 deaths. The high death toll made those involved in the killing mass murderers.
Tutu, your description is not correct. 100% reserve requirement refers to credit created to reserve ratio. If a bank has $20 million deposit, it can lend out $20 million under such a system. The 10% reserve requirement system would allow $200 million loans to be made based on the same $20 million deposit.
Cash money does not have to leave the bank at all unless the clients want cash. Most transactions are carried out as account entries.
As Clausewitz said, war is just politics by other means. In any political movement, there are always fringe elements hell bent on violence thinking that would bring expedient solution.
The key to what results from a political movement is often how quickly the winning side can sideline the violent elements afterwards and bring forth a peaceful society after the dust settles. Those who choose to be at the violent fringe of a political movement usually end up either getting killed during the "struggles" or sidelined after success or plunge the society into prolonged internecine mutual slaughter if they become the leading element of a winning political movement.
Preventing the violent fringe from becoming the leadership of a political movement is one of the major reasons for those in power not to take too violent a stand against occasional civil discontent. Chronic civil discontent needs economic solutions that incentivize people to productive lives.
BTW, Georgi Zhukov the mass murderer during the suppresson of Tambov Uprising should know what kind of result violent uprising against a militarized regime leads to: giving excuse to use chemical warfare and extermination against civilians.
There is a huge difference between exercising the right to bear arms vs. random violence against innocent 3rd party property owners in the neighborhood. The latter would only lead to even less opportunities in the neighborhood.
You are very wrong on peaceful demonstration not producing results. The civil rights movement in the 60 ' s was by and large a peaceful movement. The opposition's use of violence initially severely hurt their cause.
Central banking is actually a very Marxist idea. In Karl Marx' "Communist Manifesto" of 1848, central banking was explicitly advocated in Plank 5 of the 10 planks proposed by the manifesto.
All free marketeers believe the banks should abide by contract laws just like all other businesses. "Regulations" specifically and uniquely apply to banking tend to given privileges to existing banks either by granting them rights that would be illegal for any other business or individual (for example, "bank holiday" unilateral abrogation of contract) or by restricting competition.
"Wildcat banking" referred to state chartered banking. The US has had state chartered banking through most of its history. From the mid 1930 ' s to the early 1990's, it wasn't even legal for a bank to span multiple states; big banks like Citi had to have different correspondent banks in different states operating under the same logo but different corporations.
What does antebellum south or the 2nd American Secession have to do with the knee-jerk counter-factual admiration for the Nordics exhibited by some posters on this thread?
As for your hypothetical, that's utter nonsense. Quite a few other countries had slavery around that time. Almost all of them got rid of slavery without a war killing hundreds of thousands of people or an acrimonious following century. Brazil was a classic example: it was the largest country on its own continent, and ended slavery in the 2nd half of 19th century, about the same time as the US, without having to go through a civil war or turning the country into an empire.
The solution is quite simple: treat all people like intelligent human beings capable of maximizing for their own personal benefit:
1. If you create "too big to fail," they will merge into ever bigger entities and then gamble for their bonuses while using you as backstop payer to honor those ridiculous gambles.
2. If you tax all other industries to feed the financial industry, college students will dive into financial engineering in droves.
3. If you create an environment where diligent men are taxed for working, while losers get subsidized to sleep around, you will end up with men choosing to be losers.
4. If you remove all incentive from a woman to find a hard working productive and caring man as mate, she will fuck "alpha" thugs who pump and dump her onto the largesse of the taxpayers.
5. Just like pea hens selected males on the size of the useless tail in the tropical rain forest where food was plenty, an environment of super abundance probably would not have led to the evolution of human intelligence at all! Artificially creating abundance, stripping away genetic advantage from intelligent and responsible behavior, will lead to irresponsible behavior and idiocracy, not just by choice, but over time on a genetic level!