George Carlin on Politicians | The Republican-Democrat divide

“You may have noticed that there’s one thing I don’t complain about: Politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says, “They suck”. But where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. No, they come from American homes, American families, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and they’re elected by American voters. This is the best we can do, folks. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out…

Ignorant citizens elect ignorant leaders, it’s as simple as that. And term limits don’t help. All you do is get a new bunch of ignorant leaders. So maybe it’s not the politicians who suck; maybe it’s something else. Like the public.

That would be a nice realistic campaign slogan for somebody: ‘The public sucks. Fuck hope. Fuck hope.’

Put the blame where it belongs: on the people.

I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around.

They say, “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”, but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.”

George Carlin was a left-leaning Libertarian.

Clamor For Protectionism

Source: http://memorymaniac.blogspot.com/2010/01/clamor-for-protectionism.html

We have seen the cross of fixed exchange rates in fiat money. A few years back, Indian exporters were taking a hit as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) didn’t allow Indian Rupee to freely fluctuate against other currencies. The Rupee, which was overvalued, appreciated considerably against the Dollar. This happened not just in India. As Henry Hazlitt noted in “Will Dollars Save the World?”, this was the policy followed by most European countries. Mostly Governments overvalued their currency, which led to a surplus of the overvalued currency and a shortage of the undervalued currency. This is an illustrations of the often misunderstood “Gresham’s Law”. Gresham’s law states that “artificially overvalued money drives out of circulation artificially undervalued money”.(The definition that bad money drives out good is misleading, to say the least) The end result is commonly known as a “Dollar shortage”, accompanied with cries for dollar aid and rationing of imports. This policy has changed in course of time. Some countries follow the exact opposite policy-undervaluing their currency.

Paul Krugman, in his New York Times column, has pointed our attention towards China, which has pegged its currency at about 6.8 Yuan to the Dollar. China has a currency peg for a long time. This, Krugman says, is predatory leaving the Chinese manufacturers with a large cost advantage over its rivals, leading to huge trade surpluses. Krugman calls for protectionism to deal with the Chinese policy. The Yuan is undervalued, which makes price of exports low in terms of dollar. Foreigners find imports less expensive and exports more expensive. The Yuan, however, floats against other currencies.

It is important to see why it happens. Imagine that a good sells at 35 Yuan in China. Let’s assume that the free market rate for Yuan is 3.5 Yuan. On a free market, that good would cost 10 Dollars. But, as a result of controls, one has to pay only 5 dollars. This makes exports from China cheaper for American consumers. The price is lowered by nearly 50%. So, it should be obvious that the Americans would want to import more from China in such a situation. In the same way, a good that costs $10 in the United States has a free market price of 35 Yuan. But, as a result of controls, the Chinese will have to pay 68 Dollars. That’s an increase of nearly 100%. As a result the Chinese would want to import less from the United States. It is almost as if in China, an import duty of around 100% is levied on American products. Who would want to buy American products at such a high price? This helps the exporting community in China at the expense of Chinese consumers and certain American producers.

Sounds economics tells us that if the Chinese government allows Yuan to appreciate, it would put a break on the inflationary boom. It would contain domestic inflation in China. It would also bring down the pressure on the US government to erect protectionist barriers. It is in the self interest of China, not of the Unites States, to change its policies for good. Contrary to what Krugman wrote, China’s policies don’t pose a threat to the world. China is not “stealing” other people’s jobs. This is not to say that China’s currency policy is good. It unfairly punishes Chinese consumers, to whom the prices of American products appear high. Probably, things will change in the near future. Some economists, including Surjit Bhalla, has predicted that China’s exchange rate will appreciate significantly starting 2010. Bhalla expects a first year appreciation to about 6 Yuan per dollar from the present 6.8 level.

Krugman is of the opinion that China doesn’t act like other major economies in its currency policy. This is a half truth. It is true that most major currencies float against each other. But, most countries peg their currency against some major currencies. Moreover, Yuan floats against many other currencies, which has caused both appreciation and depreciation in the recent past. It should also be said that Yuan is stronger against the dollar than when China put a rein on its appreciation. Is Krugman justified in his claim that Chinese policy causes unemployment in the United States? It is true that some people in the US will lose jobs as of a slackening in exports, but a reduction in overall employment will be brought about only by coercive labor policy. Some producers might make losses, but it will be largely offset by the gains of consumers, which they will save or spend.

Donald Boudreaux has written a wonderful piece on “Freeman”, attacking the protectionist position. Protectionists, he says, abhor the fact that Americans are importing more from China. The policies of foreign countries make them uncomfortable. He rightly points out that the low priced Yuan will make Chinese products cheaper to American consumers. This doesn’t help the Chinese and harm Americans. Quite the contrary, in fact! It harms the Chinese economy, and helps the United States and other countries which trade with China. Protectionism would only prevent goods from being produced in a cost-effective manner. The theory of comparative advantage tells us that free trade would lead to resources being used in the most efficient way. Boudreaux illustrates the principle with a simple example. His elementary school used to sell tickets in a fund raising fair. These tickets could be exchanged for various items students want to purchase. What if the school had undervalued the tickets? Would it help the school? Obviously not! It would have helped the students at the expense of the school. Students would be able to buy more items at a lower price. So, things should be obvious by now.

Krugman doesn’t see anything necessarily wrong with the policy other than that the Chinese Government has fixed an unreasonably rate. He is wrong there too. The issue has become too contentious that there are more than two sides to it. One side believes in Government’s supreme wisdom to set the exchange rate. The other sides, mostly monetarists call for a free market in exchange rates. “Why should the Government fix the price of gold?” they ask. While freely fluctuating currencies are better than fixed exchange rates in fiat money, to call for a free market as a final solution is absurd. Advocates of a gold standard rightly understand that gold lies in the vault of the central bank, and to denationalize it, the Government should set a value so that it is possible to exchange it, one for one, for the currency claims on gold.

Exchange rates are, ideally, not to be arbitrarily set by the government, or to be left to the market to decide. Each currency should be strictly defined in terms of gold, and fixed permanently that it is interchangeable and redeemable at that weight. When done so, each and every currency would be anchored to each other at a fixed exchange rate, that seasonal fluctuations wouldn’t wreak havoc on the export or import communities. The maintenance of fluctuating exchange rates and protectionism would only reduce the incentives to innovate and hence impede it.

Why is Al Qaeda Counter-terrorism in shambles?

I found this interesting comment from a commentator on Slashdot. Very accurately depicts on the causes of this unending war on terrorism.

What motivates the enemy?

Source: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1512660&cid=30787098

People were willing to tolerate the US in saudi when the threat from iraq was immediate. People, on the whole, aren’t stupid enough to miss the big picture here. The problem is 3, 4, 5 years later why is the wealthiest muslim country reliant on a foreign power to protect itself? (Given that they can buy US weapons) The *continued* presence of the US there shamed every saudi who believed their country should be able to defend itself from a poorer, weaker (and slightly smaller populationwise) potential adversary. If we all woke up tomorrow and realized mexico had an army of 10 million with a huge inventory of tanks aircraft etc, and was sufficiently well armed NATO rushed into help guard the US border that’s one thing. But 5 years later if the potential adversary, with less money, technology, trade, access and overall weaker it’s a problem. The *continued* US presence, and no fly zones over the oppressed, gassed people of Iraq was a shame on the honour of the people of Saudi, the protectors of the muslim holy places, that they are relying on a bunch of Christians from across the ocean to guard them from another muslim state. Either they lack legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the muslim world, at which point we should wonder why we’re supporting them, or they figure we’re dumb enough to run in and help them for free, why should they bother, and we should wonder why we’re the only ones who think this needs to be done ‘our’ way.

The US troops in Saudi pushed bin laden over the edge, but he wasn’t exactly pro US or Saudi Royal family before that. The house of Saud for all practical purposes may as well all carry US or EU passports, as they syphon off all the money they can, and then store in the US and EU. As a western country that’s basically what we want them to do, if they took that money and reinvested in their economy or that of their neighbours we wouldn’t have it back (think trade deficits) As it is economically Saudi arabia may as well be part of the US. But long prior to the invasion of Kuwait and the US moving into Saudi he was against what the US puppet in Israel was doing to the Palestinians, the wealth disparity in Saudi between the princes and everyone else, US involvement in southeast asia, Russian control over chechnya, the perceived relations between egypt and the US (hence he was able to merge AQ with the Egyptian IJ)

This is something the lunatic left understands perfectly. The House of Saud are the protrusion of Western imperialism into Saudi, created by Britain (like several middle eastern states) and propped up by their successors in the US. That’s the problem. They aren’t a government of the people, for the people or anything else, nor, in the best of both worlds old school british system are the people represented. You cannot beat someone into submission, at least not states. Every single rebellion in history has played this out. Either you give them a fair shake or eventually they will come back for it, and the house of Saud is definitely not fair to the people of Saudi arabia or their supposed brothers in the rest of the muslim world who they leave in poverty. France and Germany were at each others throats over the overlapping populations along the rhine, the solution, was first move all of the germans out (since we won WW2), and then push them towards being a single state rendering the issue moot. Indians fought, and lost, a rebellion in 1857, it took them 90 years, but eventually they got independence.

There were lots of mistakes that led to Al qaeda hating the US as much as it does. Some of that was simply not inviting them to be part of the coalition to liberate kuwait, a mistake no one even conceived that we could have been making. Al qaeda offered to do it all, we not only turned them down but insulted them by suggesting they couldn’t even participate – something 20 years in hindsight we can see, by definitely had no idea of at the time. Some of it is fundamental and deeply ideological. There are still KKK members in the US, there are still people who apparently think Haiti should be enslaved by the french, you’re never going to eliminate an idea, even dumb ones. The problem is when the fringe hits on a fundamental truth. The nazi’s were a bunch of genocidal nutcases, but they were right about the treaty of Versailles being unjust and they appeared to be the only ones who could do anything about it. We could never have stopped there being anti semites but maybe a better treaty of Versailles would have prevented them being in power. In that case the US saw the writing on the wall from the start and didn’t want to go along with Versailles precisely because the then ‘lefties’ thought this was going to turn out badly in the end.

If we are to confront Al Qaeda, we need to look at all of what they stand for, not just the straw that broke the camels back (and you personally perhaps need to read the rest of ‘in the words of our enemies’ and not just one par)t, and ask ourselves whether or not there is some truth to even a small part of what they say. Is Israel basically turning gaza into a giant concentration camp? Does a huge portion of the oil wealth under the arabian desert get syphoned off into the swiss bank accounts of princes and sheiks and never used to better the lives of the people who actually live there? Do we really need a coaling station in Yemen (well not anymore but both aden in yemen and Kuwait were coaling stations)? Maybe we really do want to keep the House of Saud in power- that’s ok, but we, as the west, myself in canada or our neighbours to the south, do not appear to be making particularly educated decisions about who we’re siding with, and what the consequences are. Of course Al qaeda, like all fringe groups, has more than a one line ideology. We are not going to go along with a rebuilt caliphate that runs from the pyrennes to the indus valley, but the vast majority of the supporters of Al Qaeda are in it because of now what’s going on in iraq, or before what was happening in Saudi, Somalia, and Yemen, not because they want a rebuilt caliphate. I wouldn’t be surprised if 90% of Al Qaeda supporters are there in support of the 10% of their ideology that isn’t crazy – and that’s where we have to fight them. Unless you address that small portion of what they stand for that we could agree on they will continue to have unlimited reserves of recruits to draw on.

Lets make a short list of some of the things we, in the west do that pisses off people in the middle east shall we?

We support israel. Even when they basically build a wall around gaza and make it into a concentration camp with 80% unemployment the money and weapons from us don’t stop flowing. Oh and we let them have nuclear weapons and say nothing about it. Now I’m all for Israel existing, but our support perhaps out to come with the strings that they have to follow the laws they you know… agreed to (notably about settlements). And if we’re going to look the other way when Israel and india built nuclear weapons do we really get to complain about their adversaries wanting to point nukes back?

We support Egypt. Not exactly a democratic government, and they act as the other half of the wall around gaza.

I’m in canada. We have oil. Saudi has oil. A lot of it. Here, you can make 15 bucks an hour working at MacDonalds if you’re in the oil patch. In saudi… not so much. If you’re lucky enough to work in saudi, or the emirates you’re probably an underpaid pakistani or bangladeshi who’s had his passport seized, and is trying to scrape by on a couple of bucks an hour. But that 300 billion dollars a year or whatever it is they get for oil (at about 80 bucks a barrel) is nicely funneled back to US in the forms of investment companies.

You invaded Iraq. Honestly, that kinda pisses me off too. If the worlds policeman doesn’t follow the law it wants to then enforce it’s a bit of a problem.

We (as the UN) bombed and invaded somali in the 1990’s. Maybe it was worth the attempt to get food to people, but we sure pissed them off.

Now to be clear, that’s cherry picking a short list of negative things. But there’s a lot more going on between Al Qaeda and the US than just the US bases in Saudi. They are a worldwide network of ideologically partially aligned groups, just as the US and it’s allies are global and mostly, but not perfectly alligned. Of course we don’t practice islam (and their particular brand of it), and we certainly are not ever going to agree to that, but then if we can deal with these other issues we might not have to.

Unlike a state, where you can, even temporarily enforce you will on them (think germany), and ideology has an unlimited pool of recruits to draw from. Pardon the star wars reference in a serious discussion but the more you tighten your grip, the more of them will slip away. A state which stands for wiping out jews above all else, can compel, because it is a state, non believers to their cause. Break their control of the state, you break their connection to the bulk of their forces. An ideology isn’t like that, you have to break their few appealing positions to destroy their support. And yes, 200 years from now there will probably people in support of the crazy part of Al Qaeda’s ideology, just as there are, apparently, people who think Haiti should still be enslaved by France, but at least most people know enough to to not listen to them. Eventually of course, you make all of the reasonable compromises you can, and maybe even some unreasonable ones (*cough giving up Czechoslovakia cough*), and are left with people who will never be turned. We certainly aren’t there yet with the muslim world, but we aren’t as far of as the rest of my somewhat negative post would imply. The goal would be to have the ‘man on the street’ in the muslim world turn on Al Qaeda, not just our puppets in the House of Saud.

A Song for the End of the World | 2012 Peak Oil

A song for the end of the world – listen at

http://soundclick.com/share?songid=1125063

Here At the End of the World
David Rovics

Standing here on a highway
Turned into a lake
Born on this planet
That I didn’t make
The ice caps are melting
You can measure the rise
Of the poisoned oceans
Hear all the lies
Of the political pundits
And corporate crooks
Their accountants and scientists
Cooking the books
With hardly an inkling
Of what it’s about
Wedded to profit
In flood and in drought
I’m talking to you
From here at the end of the world

Standing here on the bayou
Amidst mountains of soil
Washed off from the farmland
And covered in oil
One ton every acre
Lost every year
And along with the pesticides
It ends up right here
Millions of miles
Of chemical wheat
Challenging all
To try to compete
And lay waste to your country
Like we’ve done to ours
Let them eat coffee
Sugar, coca and flowers
I’m talking to you
From here at the end of the world

And here in the city
Shrouded in smoke
Ten million people
This morning awoke
To a future of cancer
Industrial disease
So let’s build some more suburbs
And buy SUV’s
Let’s cut down the mountains
And burn all the coal
And put all the money
In a humungous bowl
They’ll call it progress
And they’ll blame it on you
To end life as we know it
To enrich the few
I’m talking to you
From here at the end of the world

Yes I speak to you now
From an occupied place
You might call it your home
Or a terrorist base
They’ll send your sons and your daughters
To make sure that it’s theirs
While they sit in their mansions
On their plush leather chairs
And everyone’s waiting
For us to decide
From dust we were born
And in dust we reside
Will we realize the commons
Is to shepherd and share
Here in this war zone
Called land, water and air
Yes I’m talking to you
From here at the end of the world

Created November, 2003
Copyright David Rovics 2003, all rights reserved

Ben Stein calls Ron Paul antisemitic on Larry King

Ben Stein calls Ron Paul antisemitic on Larry King  http://bit.ly/8GlpKg

What a moron ben stein is…

The Bush Crime Syndicate http://bit.ly/4v0jjL

Federal Aviation Administration Considering Passenger Ban – http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27687

The Desperately Poor Now Selling Body Parts to Survive (Reuters) – http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BR29X20091228

The cost of doing business #libertarian http://bit.ly/8cfeAY

Ron Paul on Al-Qaeda Terrorism and war in Yemen #libertarian http://bit.ly/7qakEJ

Schiff Report on HealthCare The Patriot Act & the US Constitution #libertarian http://bit.ly/5OscTe

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington?s ?Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians? for 2009 #libertarian http://bit.ly/4rMKMH

Israeli Apartheid is not Fiction!

Open letter to the organizers and attendees of Sci-Fi-London International Festival 2009

Israeli Apartheid is not Fiction!


Cancel the special tribute to Israel in the London Sci-Fi Festival!

Open letter to the organizers and attendees of Sci-Fi-London International Festival 2009

Ramallah, 29 April 2009

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) is writing to the organizers of the Sci-Fi-London International Festival of Science Fiction and Fantasy Film to urge you to cancel the special “Focus on: Israel” in your festival in London from 29 April – 4 May. We also urge the attendees of this festival, if its organizers insist on the special tribute to Israel, to protest the inclusion of this session and to boycott the focus on Israel. Honoring Israel in any field right after its massacre in Gaza shows either apathetic disregard for the lives and rights of the Palestinian people or, worse, complicity in Israel’s grave violations of international law and human rights principles.

We understand that the focus on Israel is organized in cooperation with the British Council of Arts in Israel as part of the British Israeli Arts Training Scheme, BI-ARTS, which is funded by Israel’s Ministry of Science, Culture and Sports and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The latter, it is worth noting, is currently headed by the ultra-right racist Israeli politician, Avigdor Lieberman, who in response to the struggle of Palestinian citizens of Israel for equality and full citizenship rights has continuously advocated their ethnic cleansing, notoriously stating that “minorities are the biggest problem in the world.” By organizing this session celebrating Israel’s contributions to the field, you will be effectively welcoming into your highly esteemed international forum a state that maintains the world’s longest regime of occupation and colonization as well as the only surviving apartheid.

On the festival’s website it states that the focus on Israel aims to examine the sci-fi “what if’s” being explored in other countries. Yet, we wonder if you are aware of Israel’s over 60-year old colonial history of brutally subjugating the Palestinian people. Israel’s recent war on Gaza is the latest chapter in this history of colonial oppression. In this brutal military campaign, Israel killed over 1,440 Palestinians, of whom 431 were children, and injured another 5380 [1]. Israel subjected the besieged population of Gaza to three weeks of unrelenting state terror. Israeli warplanes targeted and bombed densely populated civilian areas, using illegal munitions, such as white phosphorous, and reduced whole neighbourhoods and vital civilian infrastructure to rubble, not to mention its wilful mass destruction of agricultural land. In addition to this, Israel also partially destroyed Gaza’s leading university and scores of schools, including several run by the UN and used as civilian shelters during the war of aggression. The UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the occupied Palestinian territory has described the Israeli attack on Gaza as “a war crime of the gravest magnitude under international law.”

Israel’s war on Gaza was not an anomaly but an integral part of the systematic policies of ethnic cleansing and colonial oppression that Israel has carried out against the Palestinian people. The state of Israel was established in 1948 by forcibly expelling the overwhelming majority of Palestine’s indigenous Arab population. For 60 years now, Israel has continued to deny the millions of displaced Palestinian refugees their UN-sanctioned rights to return to their homes of origin. For the last 41 years, Israel has maintained a repressive military occupation over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, violating Palestinians’ most fundamental human rights with impunity. Israel extra-judicially kills Palestinian activists and leaders; subjects Palestinians to daily military violence; routinely demolishes Palestinian homes and illegally confiscates Palestinian land. Israeli continues to expand illegal Jewish colonies on occupied Palestinian land, linking them to an apartheid system of Jewish-only roads, and the Wall that was declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004. Israel’s policies of repression systematically target all aspects of Palestinian life and are designed to crush the Palestinian will, creativity and human spirit. Since the early 1970’s Israel has targeted and routinely closed Palestinian universities and cultural centres in the West Bank and Gaza, and imposed a repressive system of censorship, banning scores of books – effectively imposing a stranglehold designed to prevent Palestinian cultural expression. From 1979 to 1992, Birzeit University was closed 60% of the time by Israeli military orders [2].

The injustice and the violent suppression of the Palestinian struggle for freedom have lasted too long. To bring an end to this oppression, Palestinian civil society has called on people of conscience throughout the world to take a stand and support our struggle for freedom by adopting boycott, divestments and sanctions, BDS, against Israel until it fully complies with international law and recognizes our inalienable rights [3]. This BDS call has received resounding international support, and has been endorsed by a number of prominent international cultural figures and Israeli artists, including Aharon Shabtai, John Berger, Ken Loach, Arundhati Roy, Roger Waters, John Williams and others. Other high profile artists have also heeded our call by cancelling gigs in Israel; these included Bono, Bjork, Snoop Dogg and Jean Luc Goddard.

In calling on artists to support the cultural boycott of Israel, John Berger urged artists to adopt the boycott as a mechanism of protest and a means to end the silence surrounding the impunity with which Israel violates international law and denies Palestinian their basic human rights [4]. In endorsing the boycott, the prominent Israeli poet, Aharon Shabtai, said:

“A State which maintains an occupation and commits daily crimes against civilians does not deserve to be invited to whichever cultural week. We cannot accept to be part of that. Israel is not a democratic State but an apartheid State. We cannot support that State at all” [5].

To claim the cultural field is “neutral” in the face of systematic and persistent injustice is to effectively side with the oppressor. International solidarity and support for the boycott of South African played a pivotal role in helping bring down the apartheid regime. Similarly, we sincerely hope you will take a moral stand and cancel your tribute to Israel, until it meets its obligations under international law and recognizes the Palestinian people’s right to live in freedom and equality in their homeland.

Yours truly,

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI)
www.PACBI.org
pacbi@pacbi.org

[1] http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/index.php?section=3
[2] http://www.mediamonitors.net/parry1.html
[3] http://www.pacbi.org/campaign_statement.htm
[4] http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=415
[5] http://www.countercurrents.org/cattori260208.htm

F.A. Hayek warned us: Carl Schramm Buys Himself A George Eastman Medal (for academy/economy-killing Schrammenomics) from the University of Rochester While Dumbing Down The Universe With Schrammenomics

by entrepreneurshipeconomist

F.A. Hayek warned us about the Orwellian Carl Schramms of the world–the “Mastermind” statists who would rise to oppose entrepreneurs in the name of entrepreneurship and kill innovation while pretending to embrace it, as they bought themselves medals, honors, and awards while building a cult-of-personaility regimes around themelves; transforming a noble foundation (the Kauffman Foundation) into a personal vanity press, compound, and ATM machine.

“Even more significant of the inherent weakness of the collectivist theories is the extraordinary paradox that from the assertion that society is in some sense more than merely the aggregate of all individuals their adherents regularly pass by a sort of intellectual somersault to the thesis that in order that the coherence of this larger entity be safeguarded it must be subjected to conscious control, that is, to the control of what in the last resort must be an individual mind (SCHRAMMENOMICS! ONLY ONE MAN CANRECEIVE EASTMAN MEDLAS AND WRITE THE BOOKS!).

It thus comes about that in practice it is regularly the theoretical collectivist who extols individual reason (CARL SCHRAMM PRETENDS TO SALUTE ENTRPENEURSHIP AND INNOVATORS) and demands that all forces of society be made subject to the direction of a single mastermind (SCHRAMM SECRETLY SEEKS TO DESTROY HIS SUPERIOR COMPETITORS, USING THE KAUFMAN FUNDS TO PUNISH SUCCESS AND INNOVATION AND FUND SYCOPHANTIC GROUPTHINK SUPPORTERS), while it is the individualist who recognizes the limitations of the powers of individual reason and consequently advocates freedom as a means for the fullest development of the powers of the interindividual process.”

Just like the firefighters in Farenheight 411, Schramm’s chief aim is not to save the Mises and Hayek books, but to burn metaphorically them, as he ignored F.A. Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises in his dumbed-down, insipid, and dense GOOD CAPITALISM, BAD CAPITALSIM.

Is it any wonder Schramm is trying to erase F.A. Hayek and L.V. Mises from discussions on capitalsim, while he grows his dumbed-down, “growthology-MBA-buzzword” regime and funnels millions of Kauffman dollars into his own pocket?

After seven years of dictatorial, dumbed-down Schrammenomics and Carl Schramm redefining exalted entrepreneurship in his own maniacal, egostistical, dumbed-down, carboard bureaucratic, shapeshifting image, the economy is in shambles (schrammbles).

Because of a massive ego which dwarfs his meager intellectual talents, over the past seven years Schramm has defunded true economists who are smarter than him (or who mention Hayek and Mises whom Schramm completely ignored in his indecipherable, dumbed-down book GOOD CAPITALISM (SHCRAMMENOMICS): BAD CAPITALISM (HAYEK: MISES) while hijacking the Kauffman Foundation’s resources, funneling millions into his own pockets, and devoting the rest to funding dog and pony shows and wiring millions to university administrators, who most naturally oppose true innovation, honorable scholarship, and the true entreprnuership which would rescue our ailing economy, while embracing Schrammenomics.

Carl Schramm Buys Himself A George Eastman (for economy-killing Schrammenomics) Medal from the University of Rochester While Dumbing Down The Universe With Schrammenomics

Wikipedia reports: Schramm received the George Eastman Medal from the University of Rochester in …

The Kauffman website reports: “The University of Rochester, an inaugural Kauffman Campus, submitted a proposal to make entrepreneurship a comprehensive and defining institutional goal.” Kauffman wired millions to Rochester.

Conflict of interest? Should foundation heads receive medals with entrepreneur’s and innovator’s names on them after hijacking foundations bequeathed by other entrepreneurs? Especially when the foundation heads have done far more harm than good in dumbing down the academy and killing the eocnomy over their seven year anti-entrepreneurship, pro-Statist crusade and reign with an iron fist?

So it is that Carl Schramm uses the Kauffman Foundations funds to buy himself medals, while simultaneously dumbing down the academy and killing the ecomony with Schrammenomics.

Carl Schramm has redefined entrepreneurship as 1) hijacking a foundation and transforming it into a vanity press for one’s own unscholarly works (and armies of MBAs/Jds chanting growthology, growthology, growthology) which neglect to mention Nobel Laureate economists and intellectual giants such as F.A. Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises. He then handpicks a cadre of useful idiots/Dane Stanglers to attempt to backdate Kauffman research to make Schramm the Statist look like an Austrian eocnomist, while Schramm bases the Kauffman Foundation’s grants on which student-debt growing college administrators give him the most prestigious medals–not for his non-existent, insipid, dumbed-down scholarship, but for his ability to wire another man’s (Kauffman) and noble Foundation’s money.

Schramm is not Kauffman, and when he steps down, a thousand flowers will bloom as capital is allocated towards entreprneuers, students, professors, and innovators; and not towards the schrammenomics dog-and-pony show, medal-buying, Nobel prize campaigning cartel.

“I sit on a man’s back, choking him, and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by any means possible, except getting off his back.” –Tolstoy Writings on Civil Disobedience and Nonviolence (1886)

F.A. Hayek/Mises warned us about Carl Schramm et al.’s Temporal Tyranny and Postoffice, where he hires thug deputies such as Dane Stangler to backdate research and make it look like Schrammenomics embraces the Austrains, when, in fact, he compeletly ignores them in word, deed, spirit, and action–in his books and medal acquisitions alike.

Because Schramm has hijacked the $2.5 billion Kauffman foundation, he runs it as a top-down dictarorial CEO would, with every action motivated by self-preservation as the Nobel in economics slips further and further beyond his intellectually-inept reach. Sycophantic lockstepping lawyers such as Dane Stangler will never call Schramm out, as their salary depends on supporting Statist Schrammenomics above truth, beauty, classical economics, deep scholarship, and reason, and they will go so far as to backdate Kauffman research to serve their corrupt medal-buying master.

Carl Schramm did not build Kauffman, and it is time for Carl to step down.
Carl Schramm is not Kauffman, and it is time for Carl to step down.
Carl Schramm does not own Kauffman, and it is time for Carl to step down.
Kauffman did not will for his vast welath to become a Schrammenomics vanity press, and it is time for Schramm to step down.
Nowhere did Kauffman will for Carl Schramm to use a $2.5 billion warchest to purchase medals form Rochester, pen and promote insipid, self-serving books lauding Schrammenomics via a Kauffman-funded vanity press/growthology MBA-buzzword blogging cartel, while completely ignoring intellectual diants such as L.V. Mises and F.A. Hayek, and it is time for Carl Schramm to setp down.
Nowhere in the foundation’s charter did it stipulate that Carl Schramm was to lord over the Kauffman Foundation for all of entirety as the economy withered, crashed, and died; as millions of entrepeneurs, works, and common folk lost their homes, savings, pensions, businesses, and jobs to Schrammenomics’ self-serving socilaism; and the entrpreneurial spirit was replaced with Schrammenomics

The most important elements in entrepreneurship are character and integrity. The most important elements for Statists/Schrammeconomist are the lack of character and integrity and the ability to use words to mislead and deceive while laying claim to a dead entrepreneur’s estate. While Hayek and Mises used words for truth, Schramm uses words for mere personal profit and purchasing medals and promoting lackluster, anti-intellectual, dumbed-down books, and then when his lackluster, anti-intellectual, unscholarly works fall short, he has to try and put all better economists out of business by leveraging his $2.5 billion warchest. Imagine if Hayek and Mises had used a $2.5 billion warchest to put their competitors out of business and buy medals. They would never do this. For they had character and integrity, which Schramm the self-serving tyrant/Statist completely lacks.

Whenever those with a fundamentally socialist, central-planning, bureaucratic mindset approach entrepreneurship, they generally end up creating a groupthink tyranny which kills the spirit of entrepreneurship, while simultaneouly profiting off the fruits of entrepreneurship and free markets, even as such exalted entities wither and die under the Schrammeconomists’ reign of corporate terror, whence a Foundation’s resources are leveraged to put competitors out of business so that the Schrammeconomist’s inferior work might prevail in the dumbed-down market, thusly exlating Schramm as teh eocnomy and academia decline. The study and teaching of entrepreneurship requires a great character and intellect, and an even greater humility. Over the past seven years Carl Schramm has demonstrated that he lacks character, intellect, and humility; and the economy and academy have suffered immensely under is reign.

1) Carl Schramm lacks character: Schramm has beocme famous for syaing one thing while doing another and making promises he never keeps. This has been pointed out elsewhere on the internet, and it is also manifested in that he runs the Kauffman Foundation like a tyrant, pocketing millions of dollars for his inspidid treatises on Capitalism which compeletly ignore the towering giants of the field including Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek. Not referencing the Greats who have walked before you is a serious sign of unscholarly egomania, ineptitude, and a withered character. Rather than funding true economists and entrepreurs, Schramm actually uses the Kauffman foundation’s funds to oppose them while campaigning for the Nobel in economics, wiring hundreds of millions to Statists and intellectually-indifferent University administrators. Schramm runs the Kauffman Foundation not as a charitable foundation, but as a corrupt corporation which enriches Schramm in a massive manner with millions, while also allowing him to try and put his competitors out of business, funding groupthink growthology bloggers to dumb down the internet.

Should a foundation be run by those with lackluster, unscholarly books to promote and a track record for academic irresponsibility? Will they not by and by use the foundation’s resources to try and put their superior competitors out of business in cloaked, obfuscating, unmanly manners, all the while preaching fair markets and free markets? Because Schramm lacks character, integrity, and intellect, he profits not by serving entrepreneurship’s ideals, but by saying one thing while doing another and hiring Dane Stangler to backdate research trying to claim that Schramm was the first to discover/rediscover Austrian economics. Actually the Austrian economists discovered Austrian economics. And Schramm destests them because they call his failed Statist bluff with every word.

http://dealbreaker.com/2007/05/the-unsurprising-failure-of-et.php

Posted by John Bunch, Ph.D., May 03, 2007 8:50AM

It is interesting that Dealbreaker references Carl Shram of the Kauffman Foundation as an authority on ethics. Those of us who live in the Kansas City region know that Carl Schram and been a controversial figure since he was appointed to his post a number of years ago. Board members have resigned in protest of his leadership style and strategic choices. His controversial leadership led to the Missouri Attorney General reviewing the Kauffman Foundation for not staying true to the intent of Ewing Kauffman. The purpose of this review was stated as:

“In light of the public allegations of a departure from Mr. Kauffman’s intent, lack of appropriate oversight by the Board of Directors, and certain instances of conflicts of interest. ” (http://www.ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2004/kauffmanreport030404.htm#conclusion)

See also this editorial from the Kansas City Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2003/09/15/editorial1.html)

Ewing Kauffman was famous as an ethical leader. Carl Schramm is not.
http://dealbreaker.com/2007/05/the-unsurprising-failure-of-et.php

2. Carl Schramm lacks Intellect: Suppose you were to write a treatise on philosophy and leave out Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. Suppose you were to write a treatise on physics and leave out Einstein and Newton. Schramm wrote a treatise on kapitalism and he left out Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek and his teacher Ludwig Von Mises.

Conduct a search in GOOD CPITALISM: BAD CAPITALISM.

0 results for ‘hayek’
0 results for ‘mises’

Now Schramm has hired Dane Stangler to backdate Kauffman research to show that really Schramm was thinking about the Austrians all along; and again this ties into Schramm’s complete lack of character and corrupt nature.

3) Carl Schramm Lacks Humility: When one has no achievements other than commandeering a foundation for one’s own personal profit and intellectually-indifferent, vapid, Statist vanity press, one has nothing to be humble about. If Schramm had any humility he would apoligize for what he and his Statist, doublespeaking philosophies have done to academia and the economy, and he would step down.

Hayek reminds us that economics is about values, ethics, and character–not about doublespeaking Schrammenomics:

“I have arrived at the conviction that the neglect by economists to discuss seriously what is really the crucial problem of our time is due to a certain timidity about soiling their hands by going from purely scientific questions into value questions. This is a belief deliberately maintained by the other side because if they admitted that the issue is not a scientific question, they would have to admit that their science is antiquated and that, in academic circles, it occupies the position of astrology and not one that has any justification for serious consideration in scientific discussion. It seems to me that socialists today can preserve their position in academic economics merely by the pretense that the differences are entirely moral questions about which science cannot decide.
Conversation at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. (9 February 1978); published in A Conversation with Friedrich A. Von Hayek: Science and Socialism (1979) –Hayek

“If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible. He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants.” Schramm has done more harm than good by placing his campaign for the Nobel Economics and hiring/funding growthology groupthink bloggers, over supporting entrepreneurs, innovators, and entrepreneurship.

After seven years of Schrammenomics, look at the economy where millions ar elosing their jobs an dhomes. Look at the academy and the skyrocketing tuitions at the Kauffman campuses which place studnets in massive, unprecedented debt, with Kauffman campuses such as Oberlin and Keynon oft leading the way.

http://www.newsnet5.com/education/19073605/detail.html

How many more years of Schramenomics will the Kauffman board allow? When Schramm steps down, a thousand flowers will bloom, and the greats such as Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek will be given theior rightful place in the academy, as opposed to Schramm’s MBA/lawyer groupthink thugs who Schramm handpicked to serve the Schrammenomics tyranny over truth and reason.

In the recent Wall Street Journal article, Carl Schramm took great, smirking pride in the fact that nobody really knows what it is that the Kauffman Foundation is or does. Well, if you were out buying medals, building a cabal of lockstepping growthology MBA-buzzword bloggers to further your campaign for a Nobel Prize with unscholarly, unhorable, anti-intellectual books, while you let the eocnomy die while keeping Kauffman’s funds from reaching the students, innovators, schoalrs, and entrpreneurs, you would probably not want anyone to know what the Kauffman foundation is or does either.

This is simply tragic.

Kauffman was a great, definitive man with character, direction, and exalted leadership.

Schramm is a cowering, quivering doublespeaker and politician who is way out of his league in intellectual matters, which is why he must deny the bright sunlight of Hayek and Von Mises, so as to keep the Kauffman Foundation in darkness during his reign of terror and anti-intellectualism, anti-free marketplace of ideas. The tragic result is that instead of leading–instead of using Kauffman’s funds to exalt and educate and further innovation and entrepreneurship, Schramm is using them to purchase medals, line his private pockets, promote his vanity press, and bring others down; leveraging a $2.5 billion endowment to kill the free marketplace of ideas and spam the internet with links and trackbacks to his “growthology” PR campaign.

And after seven years of Schrammenomics, is the eocnomy better off? Are you better off? Probably only if you are Dane Stangler or one of Schrammenomics’ Kauffman-funded disciples.

“[Socialists] promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office.”” –Ludwig Von Mises predicting what the Kauffman Foundation would become after seven years of tryannical, corporate-CEO, personal-profiteering, anti-intellectual, anti-entrepreneurial Schrammenomics.