31 October 2022
Before examining the economics of mass immigration, meaning open borders, we must take note of the fact that advocates of this destructive policy largely fall into two groups: There is the extremely wealthy self-appointed globalist elite of which the self-righteous Sir Evelyn de Rothschild and Lady de Rothschild are prominent members.
According to the super rich Sir Evelyn any person who has the temerity to oppose this gallant knight’s love of open borders is a racist, particularly if his name is Trump1. Rest assured, however, that Sir Evelyn would not for a moment allow a mass of third-world ‘immigrants’ to invade his beautifully manicured 3,200 acre Buckinghamshire estate. Instead he and his ilk would damn well make sure that these people would be herded into the crowded streets, schools and hospitals of the working class, thereby driving down their wages and rendering their lives miserable.
Continue reading The globalists’ policy of open borders would be catastrophic for the workers 1
What proponents of central planning proposals (industrial polices as they like to call them) overlook is that no matter how productive a technology appears to be it will always need capital and entrepreneurship to convert it into a commercial success. Without these factors new technologies with commercial promise will always gravitate to foreign shores. When a country appears to be lagging behind other countries the interventionists solution is always the same: more intervention. That government intervention, meaning political meddling. may have created the situation these same politicians and their academic advisors now lament never seems to occur to them.
They also appear unable to grasp the fundamental fact that it is savings (spending on future goods as opposed to present goods) that fuel an economy and it is entrepreneurship that drives it. However, according to the eminent Professor John Quiggin:
Continue reading Technology, markets, investment, and Professor Quiggin’s flagrant errors
In my last post I explained the crucial role the gold standard played in the classical economists’ theory of free trade. This is of vital importance because the classical approach deals a damaging blow against the globalists so-called ‘free trade’ arguments. The classical theory argued that for the flow of international goods to be determined by the purchasing power of each trading nation a stable exchange rate was essential which in turn required a self-regulating specie standard. Therefore, only a specie standard could ensure an international division of land, capital and labour would result in these factors being allocated to their most valued ends thereby raising the standard of living above what it would otherwise be.
But the classical economists were adamant that purchasing power parity1 was based on the prices of internationally tradeable goods: domestic goods were excluded. This meant that price levels play no role in their thinking. Frank Taussig emphasised Ricardo’s important position on this issue when he pointed out that the
Continue reading Gold standard, exchange rates the Dutch disease
One can find numerous articles1 on the net defending what the authors call globalisation. They strive to equate the great burst of international trade that took place from 1870 to 1914 with what today’s world has been experiencing for several decades, arguing that there is no fundamental difference between the two historical periods and that anti-globalism is a “zero sum game’. However, once we examine the facts we do find a fundamental difference between the two periods that destroys the globalist’s economic argument. But first, let us take a quick look at international trade as it was in the nineteenth century.
Continue reading The Rothschild’s Gold and exchange rates
Just a few words on what to many people, is the amazing spectacle of America’s super rich
lavishing “soak-the-rich” Democrats with oodles of money and other means of material support. So let us take a quick look at some of America’s top-drawer citizens. There is Warren Buffett who seems to think that his accumulation of billions has made him into a superior human being. We have George Soros whose financial success convinced him that he is an intellectual and moral giant but whose hands drip with the blood of innocents. One need only give this psychopath’s writings on politics and economics a cursory look to see the extent of his ignorance.
Continue reading Why do the very rich fund America-hating leftists?
Adam Creighton (The Australian’s ‘Washington Correspondent’) had barely touched down at Dulles Airport when he wrote a piece for The Australian noting that in his fours years of office Trump had “notched up significant achievements1”. Then Creighton’s irrational loathing for Trump kicked in for a moment when he falsely accused Trump of having a “repulsive personality”. It’s been down hill ever since. Seven days ago he hit rock bottom with a viciously dishonest attack on Trump2. It was atrocious smear-mongering at its worst, written by someone who had lost any sense of common decency he may have once had. A real journalist would not have had anything to do with it, which is why Paul Kelly, The Australian’s editor-at-large, will have loved it.
Regarding the illegal Mara-Lago raid Creighton, insinuated that Trump, and therefore every president before him, did not have the authority to declassify documents3. This is lie. Creighton damn well knows that according to a1988 supreme court ruling a president can declassify anything he wants at any time and in anyway whatsoever. He is not constrained by any official or unofficial procedures. Moreover, a 2012 decision by Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, ruled that a president had a right to any document or recordings as his private property.
Continue reading Adam Creighton and Murdoch’s Australian smear Donald Trump
What the world needs, according to Lynn Forester de Rothschild, is “inclusive capitalism” (what Mussolini called corporatism) with the aim of “creating long-term value for all stakeholders — businesses, investors, employees, customers, governments and communities….”1. Standing foursquare behind this one percenter la Pasionaria is her hubby the 90-year-old Sir Evelyn Rothschild, the Don Quixote of the financial world, the same gallant knight that smeared President Trump as “a lunatic”2. And now this pecksniffian pair of self-appointed elitists have the audacity to lecture the rest of us on the so-called benefits of ‘globalism’.
The word for their self-aggrandising nonsense is balderdash. A stakeholder is someone with a direct financial interest in a business. To suggest, for example, that I have a claim on a business of some kind simply because I buy its products or work for it is patently absurd. You can bet your last dollar that when Lady Rothschild, as she likes to be called, speaks of stakeholder capitalism she is not including the House of Rothschild and its innumerable plush offices, banks and opulent mansions.
Continue reading Rothschild’s globalism is fascism in a different garb: part 1