The Joy of Abortion

Can’t have a “career” and “joy” and “freedom” without this practice and its repetition…

“In 1993 I had two abortions,” Alyssa claimed, explaining that at that particular point in time she “had a career, and a future, and potential.” (Really? What happened?) Life for her then was “joyful,” “exciting,” and “powerful.”

[…] Milano is too proud to even consider any negative aspects of the child-killing decision. There’s no remorse, just a vindictive pride at having bucked the “oppression” of religion, ethics and decency. She claimed, “I refuse to allow anyone else’s bullshit morality to force me into a life of premarital celibacy. I refuse to live in the narrative that sexual pleasure is for men and that women exist to deliver that pleasure.”

That empowered attitude helped Milano have her second abortion within the same year, and you better believe that those acts of child-sacrifice at the altar of self are the most freeing, joy-bringing things she’s done.

Read the whole article by Gabriel Hays here.

Alex Jones, Maximum Hypocrite & Hegemonist

by Serban V.C. Enache

I write this blog post after listening to the Alex Jones show on internet radio. I’m so disgusted by Jones’ blatant hypocrisy and supremacist stances, it’s not even funny.

First, Alex Jones spoke with orgasmic vigor about Trump’s offer to buy Greenland. Jones invoked American Manifest Destiny, the ‘superior’ American creed, and how smart from a business perspective the whole venture is. This is the same Alex Jones who will criticize with fervent zeal foreign states and foreign firms who come into the US looking to buy politicians, law makers, firms of all kinds, and land. Jones will call waves of migrants and refugees seeking to enter the US, legally or not, as invaders – but he staunchly promotes the idea of Yankees colonizing Greenland. He didn’t shy away from using the verb – “to colonize.” In fact, Jones, per his usual sophistry, repeated several times the age of those inhabitants of Greenland, with the aim to downplay hundreds of years of history as not being comparable to thousands of years – even though the USA doesn’t even come close to matching those seven centuries he invoked. Imagine the reaction of Greenlanders, if any of them heard Jones’ designs for their country: US capital coming in to buy their land, US immigrants coming in to settle and push them out, US corporations coming in to extract resources and destroy the environment.

Then Jones moved on to another subject. He tried to disculpate himself from accusations levied at him for being a Zionist shill. Jones said that’s the litmus test, the place where the Far Right and the Far Left agree on. Jones confessed to being pro-Israel, that he adopted this stance after hearing all the criticism against Apartheid Israel, which he deems unfair. Jones compared Israel’s situation [with the Palestinians] with racism in America, implying that it’s all a SJW fabrication – as if the two things are even comparable. By stating that “Saudi Arabia doesn’t take in one Palestinian,” Jones again implies that Palestinians must be a menace. I wonder if he uses the same logic to Syrian refugees… At any rate, this claim of his is a lie. Around 240,000 Palestinians live in Saudi Arabia. That being said, Palestinians are the sole foreign group that cannot benefit from a 2004 law, which entitles expatriates of all nationalities who have resided in the kingdom for ten years to apply for citizenship.

Jones also didn’t miss another opportunity to slander Ilhan Omar, saying she’s silent on Saudi Arabia’s track record on human rights abuse. Omar has made statements condemning Saudi Arabia; and Saudi-sponsored news outlets attacked her for it. To say she’s a hypocrite on this issue [on violent, despotic, corrupt Islamic regimes] is fake news – the same fake news tactics Alex Jones deplores when Trump’s the target. Using the Zionist playbook word for word, Jones insisted that Israel’s critics all have the same view, that Israel hasn’t the right to exist, which is a complete straw man. But Jones has no shame in using the same card employed by the enemy, in the logic that a lie told often enough becomes truth. Alex Jones also touched on the lie of WMDs in Iraq – but he never attacks Bibi, one of the biggest pushers of that myth and one of the biggest lobbyists for the US Government to send US soldiers to kill and die in Iraq – a country which had nothing to do with the 9/11 operation. No. To Alex Jones, Benjamin Netanyahu is the good guy. In fact, US military presence in the Middle East is all about serving the geopolitical interests of Israel and the Gulf states. Jones has no problem with the US military acting as a stooge for the former state actor, though.

Alex Jones is another snake-oil salesman, an utterly heinous, filth of a creature, fake Christian, and fake patriot. He’s a Globalist all day long, except that, unlike the cosmopolitical factions at work, he only supports a particular brand of world order; when the USA snaps its fingers, all other countries dance: US-First Global Hegemony.

Libtards can’t find Fault with Trump’s Economy

According to a CNN poll from late May, the core reason voters approve of Trump’s job performance is the economy; 26 percent of those backing Trump invoke this reason – more than double the next most commonly given answer. Additionally, 8 percent said low unemployment was the main reason for why they approved of Trump. Among the anti-Trump crowd, few said anything on the economy to justify their disapproval. Only 1 percent [perchance a statistical error] complained about the Trump tax cuts. There’s plenty to criticize on the economic front, but it just goes beyond the heads of libtards, who, in the poll, mainly invoke Trump’s personal shortcomings.

Erdogan is Right about Monetary Policy

by Serban V.C. Enache

Last month, Turkey’s president fired the head of the country’s Central Bank, Murat Cetinkaya. “We told him several times to cut interest rates at meetings on the economy […] We said that if rates fall, inflation will fall. He didn’t do what was necessary.” His view on monetary policy was mocked by mainstream economists, who are either incompetent or just playing dumb. Sure enough, the CB did what Erdogan desired. That being said, Turkey’s key lending rate and interbank rate remain in the double digits. Meanwhile, private debt to GDP has stabilized at around 170 percent and the public’s desire now is to slowly unwind.

Here’s why Erdogan’s unorthodox view on monetary policy is correct. The CB’s lending rate is the cost of borrowing reserves; reserves are used by banks for accounting and settlement purposes. Banks DO NOT lend out reserves to their debtor customers. The ability of banks to approve loans is contingent on their capital and the actual demand for loans: the presence of credit-worthy customers willing to borrow money. Banks first approve the loans, and later acquire the reserves if they need them. So long as a bank meets the capital requirement, it can always borrow reserves [in case it’s short on reserves] from the interbank market [from banks with a surplus of reserves] or from the Central Bank itself. The lending rate is a cost on liquidity. During a period of deleveraging, which the Turkish private sector wants to do, it’s not wise to increase this cost. At the same time, higher interest on reserves and on Government bonds translates into larger financial flows into the economy through the CB & Government interest payments channel.

A counter-argument can be made that, with a lower lending rate, speculators could borrow Liras more easily and use them to buy foreign currency. This is a legitimate concern, however, since Turkish private sector debt has peaked, fewer economic agents have a good balance sheet to engage in such activities, and at the same time, given the overall situation, banks are more prudent now, since their equity positions are shaky. This particular concern wouldn’t exist if the country’s laws ensured asset side discipline for the banking sector. Contrary to conventional beliefs, you don’t discipline banks on the liability side, but on the asset side. A bank’s liabilities are stable in value, but its assets [loans made] oscillate in value. The riskier the loans, the riskier the spread between assets and liabilities, endangering the bank’s equity position. Erdogan’s desire to have the Central Bank lower rates is beneficial in two ways for the Turkish economy. First, it allows for a smoother deleveraging phase. Second, it minimizes the volume of funds entering the economy via the CB & Government interest payments channel, easing inflationary pressures.

Here’s what Erdogan’s Government should do with regard to asset side regulations. Banks shouldn’t have subsidiaries of any kind, since keeping assets off balance sheet doesn’t serve public purpose and it makes it harder in real terms for Government regulators to monitor them. Banks shouldn’t be allowed to accept financial assets as collateral for loans, because leverage serves no public purpose. Banks shouldn’t be allowed to lend off-shore [for foreign purposes]; bilateral agreements between states should cover that type of activity. Banks shouldn’t be allowed to engage in proprietary trading or any profit making venture beyond basic lending. Banks would issue loans based on credit analysis, not market valuation; they would not be allowed to mark their assets to market prices. Banks shouldn’t be allowed to buy or sell credit default insurance. Banks shouldn’t be allowed to contract in an interest rate set in a foreign country. Banks would only be allowed to lend directly to customers, service and keep those loans on their own balance sheet. No public purpose is served by selling assets to third parties. The interbank market should be abolished as well, since it serves absolutely no public purpose. The CB should lend directly to its member banks. The reserve requirement should also be removed, since banks can provision themselves with enough liquidity [from the State] by simply looking at the behavior of their customers. And under all these rules in place, limited Government deposit insurance can be upgraded to full insurance. Last but not least, in order to improve the ability of banks to manage risk and lower overall speculation, a principle from the Islamic banking model should be adopted. It works as follows – when a customer comes in to get a loan to acquire a piece of property [a house, an apartment, a vehicle etc], the bank buys that property and gives it to the customer for use, but the bank retains ownership over it, until the debt is squared. This provision serves another great purpose… it facilitates an easy transition from mainstream taxation to the Single Tax [Georgist] framework. With this rule in place, the responsibility for paying the land-value tax [LVT] falls upon the bank, not the debtor. The debtor makes the debt payments to the bank, and the bank uses those funds to pay the LVT.

Here are two examples:

Phasing in Land-Value Taxation. I bought land through a bank loan, and now the Government has eliminated the property tax and instead introduced a 10 percent LVT. I’m stuck with paying the LVT and the debt I owe to the bank, which is not fair. Therefore, the Government introduces the Islamic banking rule retroactively, and the ownership of the land goes to my creditor, who can’t kick me out, as long as I honor my debt payments. With this change in ownership, the bank accepts a loss of 10 percent [the LVT]. It’s much easier for Government to deal with financial firms in an orderly, institutional manner, than directly with every household faced with this double-burden. The State can temporarily relax capital requirements, should it be necessary in the transition from the antiquated, regressive and perverse tax code to the new, fair and efficient one. The boys and girls at the Bank of International Settlements will, of course, grimace at such a bold and informed move.

Full Land-Value Taxation is in place. Banks won’t be happy to accept land as collateral, given the fact land has a 100 percent tax liability on it. And those that do will have to hope for a near zero profit at best. So gaining access to land will be possible in most cases without any upfront cost. A citizen will simply pledge to pay LVT to the State, and he or she gets the respective plot.

Going back to the issue at hand… mainstream commentators can mock Erdogan as much as they want, but they’re the ones who are wrong about interest rates. The ‘natural’ interest rate on fiat money is zero! Anything below zero is a tax. Anything above zero is a subsidy. Those who claim that higher interest rates lower the volume of ‘malinvestment’ are arguing for a regressive and inefficient way to combat it. According to their logic, all pharmaceuticals should be sold at a premium, to make it more expensive for those seeking to buy the drugs for recreational use, instead of treating illnesses. Why should everyone pay more because a few abuse these products? Why should the cost of money be higher, just because some use it for speculation, rather than wealth creation? The correct logic is to distinguish between productive and unproductive economic activity. Encourage the former and discourage the latter. Higher interest rates across the board [levied irrespective of the type of economic activity] is as regressive as it gets and it hardly does anything to contain malinvestment. Those who blame the real estate bubble on low interest rates [so-called artificially low rates] are wholly missing the root cause: privatized land rents – landlords and money lenders appropriating the value of location [value which they did not create]. Without this phenomenon, asset price inflation wouldn’t occur. Under full land-value capture, property prices would be kept stable. If Erdogan wants to escape the looming recession and secure his power, instead of engaging in damage control, his Administration should push in the Georgist direction, even if that means completely pissing off the vested interests within and without Turkey.

‘Xenophobic’ Latin America?

Reply to Al Jazeera’s Megan Janetsky on ‘Xenophobia’

by Serban V.C. Enache

In this article, Megan Janetsky claims that “Venezuelans have faced increased xenophobic attacks and attitudes,” but doesn’t invoke a single example of such an attack. The fact that countries in Latin America have begun to take measures to stem immigration is not a sign of xenophobia, it’s the inevitable consequence of the reality on the ground. It’s simply impractical for these countries to accommodate higher and higher inflows of people from Venezuela. There’s only so much space, facilities, job offers, and money [foreign funds on which these countries are largely dependent] to go around. Instead of playing the xenophobia card, lecturing countries and governments about how bad they are for not being xenophiles, the author should lay the blame on Washington’s foreign policy, not just on Maduro’s Government. By the way, Megan Janetsky doesn’t mention the trade sanctions, doesn’t mention the West’s hostile policy toward the country at all. This fact alone betrays the article as being nothing more than propaganda, a liberal’s virtue signalling, false humanitarianism, and promotion of the ‘no-borders’ and ‘limitless immigration’ mentality.

Crippling Western sanctions and theft of Venezuelan assets held abroad, on top of efforts to foment civil unrest and treason within the country’s law enforcement and military, are the major factors – but Maduro’s Government certainly has its share of the blame, and it goes back to Chavez’s administration as well.

And, yes, it’s also a failure of Venezuelan type of socialism. Take Cuba, for instance. Cuba has lived under US trade sanctions for more than half a century [plus US-sponsored terrorism]; and despite the odds, living on the hegemon’s doorstep, it managed to retain socio-economic and political stability. Cuba doesn’t have a fraction of Venezuela’s natural wealth; but it does have 1/3 of Venezuela’s population. Since the 1960s, Venezuela’s birth rate, measured per 1000 people, has fallen dramatically as you can see in the graph below.

In order to move away from the ‘resource exporter’ model, a country requires an increase in population size in order to diversify production, without depriving its traditional sectors of manpower. Simply put, if you want to diversify without causing shortages elsewhere, you need a bigger labor force. Chavez and Maduro didn’t even try to diversify, nor would they have succeeded without promoting population growth. The fact that a country the size of Venezuela has only three times the population of Cuba is a statistic worthy of national shame. The same goes for my country of Romania, which has only two times Cuba’s population. The fact that there are stores, filled with produce while people face severe malnutrition, that gasoline basically has no price in Venezuela, but electricity is rationed and public transportation is curtailed or paralyzed, points to the fact that Bolivarianism, or more accurately Chavism, was carried out with a total disregard for true economic and geopolitical planning. While hostile state actors and domestic renegade forces do offer the ruling political class in Venezuela a degree of extenuating circumstances, such adversity doesn’t wash away the complacency and criminal incompetence of the country’s Left wing governing parties and leaders. All decision factors across the hierarchical chain, who place ideology or their own status above the Nation must be ejected and their designs carefully examined and purged of any ideological adventurism and self-seeking schemes. Maduro and his crew aren’t fit for office, and Guaido should be arrested and condemned for high treason.