Lindsey Graham is a TERRORIST!

by Serban V.C. Enache

On national television, Lindsey Graham, a republican senator, engages in a particular and detestable activity called terrorism. If the people of Venezuela and Cuba don’t choose Washington’s puppet, then they are going to suffer violence and death via invasion; because US economic warfare [forcing casualties via dearth] against both these countries is not enough. Graham wants to imitate Reagan’s invasion of Grenada and apply it to Venezuela and Cuba.

Notice how the interviewer on Fox News treats this terrorist threat as if it’s something vaguely out of the norm and thanks this subhuman filth of a senator for the interview, instead of invoking the US constitution, international law, and basic common sense against this maniac’s reprehensible proposal.

Let’s make it abundantly clear. All institutions [state, private and quasi] and all actors pressing for military confrontation and labeling diplomatic solutions as treasonous or anti-American are the scum of the earth, a cabal of death and ruin. They are war profiteers. They are a threat to other nations, including their own – a threat to all Humanity and a scourge before the eyes of any god worthy of worship. And in the interest of peace and rational dialog among and between nations, these supreme criminals should receive life sentence in prison.

I will cite three paragraphs from Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations 3rd book: Of War.

§ 32. Pretexts.

Let us, however, entertain a better opinion of nations and their rulers. There are just causes of war, real justificatory reasons; and why should there not be sovereigns who sincerely consider them as their warrant, then they have besides reasonable motives for taking up arms? We shall therefore give the name of pretexts to those reasons alleged as justificatory, but which are so only in appearance, or which are even absolutely destitute of all foundation. The name of pretexts may likewise be applied to reasons which are, in themselves, true and well-founded, but, not being of sufficient importance for undertaking a war, are made use of only to cover ambitious views, or some other vicious motive. Such was the complaint of the czar Peter I. that sufficient honours had not been paid him on his passage through Riga. His other reasons for declaring war against Sweden I here omit.

Pretexts are at least a homage which unjust men pay to justice. He who screens himself with them shows that he still retains some sense of shame. He does not openly trample on what is most sacred in human society: he tacitly acknowledges that a flagrant injustice merits the indignation of all Mankind.

§ 33. War undertaken merely for advantage.

Whoever, without justificatory reasons, undertakes a war merely from motives of advantage, acts without any right, and his war is unjust. And he, who, having in reality just grounds for taking up arms, is nevertheless solely actuated by interested views in resorting to hostilities, cannot indeed be charged with injustice, but he betrays a vicious disposition: his conduct is reprehensible, and sullied by the badness of his motives. War is so dreadful a scourge, that nothing less than manifest justice, joined to a kind of necessity, can authorize it, render it commendable, or at least exempt it from reproach.

§ 34. Nations who make war without reason or apparent motives.

Nations that are always ready to take up arms on any prospect of advantage are lawless robbers…

The Duran: Rise of the Euroskeptics, Rise of the Greens

European Parliament elections have concluded across the EU, with results showing a surging rise of conservative right Euroskeptic parties, Green and Liberal parties. The pro-EU center left and center right have lost their combined majority. Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris discuss the implications of these surprise results.

My Comment: In a stunning result, Nigel Farage’s Brexit party won the most seats in the EU parliament, 29 vs Labour’s 10 and the Tories’ four. Everyone saw how the elites [left, right, and center] tried to sabotage the exit procedure. Everyone saw the lack of backbone. Everyone saw the lies, the doublespeak, and the tergiversations.

I welcome the harsh punishment the Conservative party received. May those crooks receive the same in national elections. As for the so-called party of Labour, it has already become a minor faction in UK political life. If Corbyn doesn’t want to go down in history as the Judas he has proven himself to be thus far, beginning with his 180 degree turn from his convictions as a Bennite [aka. pro national sovereignty] in his youth, he should negotiate with Farage’s party for a hard Brexit, and in exchange, Farage should back a dirigist economic policy, designed not to impede, but enhance labour, commerce, and enterprise.

I can already hear the critics? What? Are you nuts? Farage will never go for that! He’s a tory! He doesn’t want state intervention! I remember Enoch Powell, a staunch capitalist and free marketeer, defending on national television the [Government owned and Government managed] NHS. I can also invoke the philosophy of Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School of Economics, in defence of my suggestion, that capitalists and socialists can find common ground. Here is Carl Menger’s absolutely respectable and sensible view on the State’s role in the economy, alongside my suggestions for a set of Non-Marxist Socialist and Georgist policies. Note: the first link deals more with local government reforms, while the second link contains suggestions for a radical, post-EU & post-NATO Bulgaria, proposals which can be extrapolated to the UK.

I realize that such a scenario is highly implausible, but for the sake of argument, let me finish my logic. There is no middle ground on Brexit, not even in the eyes of voters. You’re either for hard Brexit or against Brexit. If Labour would dump its soft Brexit stance and harden it ahead of recall elections, I believe he and Farage would bag a lot of votes, but not necessarily enough to form a majority on their own; they would have to get the support of some Liberal Democrats and Greens. I know that some individuals in these two camps are in favor of land-value taxation and could be persuaded to place Britain first, instead of the neoliberal EU.

Follow the Duran website and youtube channel for future videos and great discussions. If you like their content and are able to spare a few bucks, visit their Patreon page to show your support.

The scam of Marginal Tax discourse

Don’t follow the herd…

by Serban V.C. Enache

Recently, a talk about the size of Marginal Tax rates has entered a part of public discourse. The claims are that higher taxation on the margin is morally acceptable, because people making more money than others pay more in taxes, and the body of citizens benefits from Public Services, which are thus ‘better funded’ in this situation. If you’re a regular reader of this website, you’re familiar with Chartalism, so I won’t bother to (again) debunk the orthodox myth of ‘tax more, so we can spend more’ in a context in which there’s plenty of idle land, labor, and factories to go around. I will instead focus on the fraudulent claims these politicians and leftist activists make regarding marginal tax rates in the USA and the so-called moral soundness behind them.

First of all, marginal tax rates ARE NOT effective tax rates. In the mid 1940’s, the effective tax rate for the Top 1% reached an all time high of 45% of income. Most of the fiscal drag, however, fell on the bottom 50%.

People claiming that the good times of post-WW2 were due to the 91% marginal tax rate are ignoring the geopolitical, financial, and economic climate of that period. Namely, Europe and Asia were left devastated by the war, and the USA’s production capabilities were unrivaled globally. In the 1950s, the effective tax rate on the Top 1% was about 42% of their income, albeit the marginal tax rate at the time was 91%. Today, the effective tax on the super rich is slightly lower than what it was in the 50s.

Statements from these leftist activists imply that the rich were somehow paying 91% of their income in the USA’s history. That implication is an outright lie, and the failure of these activists to make that clear is all the more proof of them pursuing an ideological agenda, facts be damned, not unlike their republican counter-parts. And as for the claim that higher marginal tax rates bring in more revenue for the Government [so it can fund more public services or fund existing ones better], that too is false. Since WW2, tax revenue in the USA, despite changes in taxation levels, has remained about 19.5% of GDP.

Now let’s address the moral claims of these leftist activists, useful idiots of the Establishment. The left and the right and center are taught by conventional wisdom to view moneys that people make only in terms of sums, figures. They never ask from what type of activities those moneys are obtained. If they bothered to ask this little question, they would see how utterly unjust and fallacious the former logic is. There’s a difference between earned income and unearned income. There’s a difference between a markup drawn up from actual competition vs a markup drawn up from cartelization. There’s a difference between making money from labor, from profit [enterprise], from rent [land and other natural monopolies / natural commons], and from usury. If we recognize the nature of these different economic activities, then we wouldn’t be taxing the former productive ones and allowing the latter parasitic activities to go untaxed and unhindered.

We would be taxing economic rents, we’d work to abolish patents, and we’d have a banking sector that loans at near zero markups for productive purposes (for businesses to expand output capacity, for people to fix up their homes, that sort of thing). We wouldn’t tolerate a banking system like we have today, with sky high markups, that gives out loans mainly for speculative purposes – predatory schemes that thrive off asset price inflation (rents of location), only to later on transform the populace into serfs and then having the Enlightened, Humanitarian, Bourgeois Intellectuals and Caviar Marxists sermonizing about the evils of populism, isolationism, and the need for decision making to be had at Trans-National level among the properly educated and wealthy few in the attempt to create another Tower of Babel in the satanic ambition that representatives of a degenerate offshoot of human culture shall become gods in heaven, not just on earth.

In truth, however, the rightists are regressive because they want to reduce taxes indiscriminately (trickle down economics), and from these efforts, the rent-seekers and usurers reap the highest gains. And the leftists are regressive because they want a higher tax burden, that, like previously shown, falls mainly on the working classes, and not at all on the super rich.

The income inequality issue gets most of public attention, especially in the mainstream media, precisely because it’s a debate from which both camps argue based on flawed assumptions. The issue gets turned into political soccer, devoid of any actual facts, devoid of any true emotion of righteousness – it all becomes an opportunity to proselytize, to signal virtue, to shame, and to feign outrage in the worst way imaginable.

In truth, however, mankind has been plagued by a more gargantuan and sinister specter throughout history: wealth inequality. One solely requires the curiosity to search and the wits to see this truth, as it rises from the antediluvian dirt beneath our feet. Land, the first factor of production. Land, nature-made, unlike capital. The site value, established by the labor and investments of the community (including the public authority), NOT by the idle classes, landlords and usurers. The working classes will reclaim the natural and social commons, or they will be content to live with the idea that the word “The People” only exists de jure on some scrawny piece of paper, and not at all in reality, past, present, or future.

Nowadays, the hope touted among so-called progressive circles is a false one: that these Democrats with some new adjective attached before that label are somehow the forces of radical change for good. As Nick Barrickman concisely states, their role is to fool youngsters (and in my opinion some old timers as well) to vote for the Democratic Party, to fool them into believing that this war-mongering, thieving, and undemocratic party can be reformed. Young people generally don’t vote, or if they do, they vote 3rd party or independent; so that’s a demographic segment coveted by the Establishment.

It’s always effective to present two options, one as evil, and one as the lesser evil to the public, and then have the audacity to claim ‘freedom of choice,’ ‘political pluralism,’ and ‘the will of the People, in accordance with the law, has spoken.’

In domestic affairs, what the Republicans and Democrats offer the American People is simple: Feudalism with borders and Feudalism without borders.

For further info on what the Government should and shouldn’t tax, see these videos.

Property Tax vs Site Value Tax

Site Value Taxation & Agriculture

Site Value Taxation and Buildings

Site Value Taxation & Public Infrastructure/ utilities

Cat, mouse and snake

by Serban V.C. Enache

In his essay, “The Precariat: Today’s Transformative Class?”, Guy Standing tries to set up a historical context, a categorization of current class identities and class dynamics, and puts forth several measures to achieve a brighter future. It’s great that he talks about reclaiming the commons and taxing economic rents – albeit he forgets to stress that regressive taxes should be abolished while doing so. Continue reading “Cat, mouse and snake”

The Clock’s Ticking for Turkey

by Serban V.C. Enache

The financial picture looks like this:

Turkish Government debt: 28 percent of GDP in 2017, and has been falling for several years. Private sector debt is 170 percent of GDP – and roughly 35 percent of that is denominated in foreign currency. Turkish nominal GDP growth has been solid for several years, even reaching the double digit mark. Continue reading “The Clock’s Ticking for Turkey”