The joys of private property

(Foloos up: 

There are several reasons to allow private property:
1) it encourages people to be more careful with certain goods, examples:
A) the African elephant and rhinoceros are not privately owned and, after so much time, still threatened with extinction, the dairy cow is not.
B) the fastest car in the world: a rental. The owner of an exotic supercar will likely be more careful with that price(d/y) possession, than with the rental he picked up at the airport.
2) communists hate it. And I (have come to) hate communists. Vile, venomous beasts.



Since in communism, there were no prices (because the state owned and thus made everything) ( ), there was no way to distribute scarce resources like food. Socialistic solution: appoint rations, each month giving the party elite 4 kilograms of meat and 4 kg of fish. The chiefs of Russian police, too. After all, those are the most important people in a socialist system. More important than the Russian workers, who only got about 2 kg of rotten fish,every month.
That is equality under socialism. A system that is imposed from the top down will always give perks to the ones at the top. Since all the world’s socialism has been imposed, it is always top down, and never equal.
There was no private property (private fishing boats, farms), which would have allowed that farmers / fishermen to distribute (sell) the food to those who were willing to pay the most for it. If a chief of police is hungrier than a worker, then the chief of police should offer to pay more. If the food is rotten, nobody will be willing to pay for it (except perhaps an entrepreneur who found a way to make money from compost). This is the only wsyto achieve anything resembling a just distribution

Joseph Stigbits

Small wonder that Joseph Stiglitz proposes to ban Bitcoin, so called because of the threat to the economy. Stiglitz is a former employee of the world bank, a political organisation. And politics is responsible for all economic crises in the past. The great depression of the 1920s / 1930s wss caused by the fed’s inflating of the money supply; the housing crash was caused by the government pushing through the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

The ECB is now digging a deep hole for the European economy.

So cryptocurrencies like BitCoin are a way out for the people. Just like they are for Venezuelans who are victimized by the communist junta that has devalued the Bolivar to the point oglf econonic ruin.

Quick, the economy is down, waste money on (space) tanks

The Keynesian fallacy that spending borrowed money is a good way to get out of an economic slump keeps being proposed by Keynesians.
But it makes me wonder: what do we do about the slump caused by the borrowing (and having to pay back the interest& the principal)? It might be better to prevent the slump in the first place, so stop messing with the currency supply. Devaluating it, in order to pay back the borrowed money.
Instead of roads to nowhere, Paul Krugman has proposed to veign alarm of an alien invasion, to stimulate spending on weapons of destruction (whether mass, or individual). While it may be true that such spending gets the economy out of a slump for the time being, it sets up the following slump. By requiring that a government steals more money (raises taxes) and spends less.
The latter is a good thing, of course, but only if preceded by less taxation.
What is wrong with “defense” spending? (Apart from it always being offensive spending) The fact that destructive spending always ends up costing money, and not yielding income. Aka it is unproductive. Meaning all the money spent on it, has now disappeared from the wealth ever available on earth.
When those roads / space ships / weapons have been built, nothing can be built with them, only unbuilt (destroyed). A road that goes from somewhere to somewhere else can serve to transport goods or people between the places. A gun can only be used to steal stuff from someone, this someone will either:
die, or
steal from someone else in a spread-the-poverty kind of system, or:
retalliate, making everyone worse off.

Sigh… conspiracists drive me nuts (an elaborate treatise on “Big oil”)

I’m sorry for the length of this post, but I had no choice but to spell it out to make those simpletons understand it.

With conspiracists I’m obviously referring to the desperate warmists that warp their panties in a pretzel in order to ignore the illogic of their claims. For instance: car makers and “big oil” are trying to undermine “real” global warming science, and wage disinformation campaigns. Why? Well obviously, because VW makes petrol engines. Yeah so? They make diesels too, and you can get them to run on LPG as well, if you add some equipment. But they also make cars and actually, it’s their cars that use the engines they make. So yes, they will very much be willing to adopt a new fuel technology when that becomes de rigeur for cars, in order to be able to continue selling cars.

Come on… Please!

Analogy (showing how ridiculous the claim is):
It’s clear why one of the largest typewriter companies in the world was fiercely opposed the computerisation of offices, because they would lose marketshare and disappear from the face of the earth if everyone would switch from typewriters to computers.
This is the reason why IBM lobbied for laws putting a stop to the installation of computers in offices. Also they have waged a thoroughly comprehesive, long-running disinformation campaign disguising themselves as the largest maker of mainframes (S/360 through to z/Series), and the inventor of the PC (later supposedly developed into the PS/2 with it’s dedicated operating system, OS/2, also running on older-architecture PC’s, which they did not return to making when the PS/2-adventure proved to be a failure. Because they were making PS/2s with Micro Channel Architecture extension cards/slots, not the older (slower) Industry Standard Architecture extension slots, and obviously they could not make the transfer back, which would be the third time they changed the architecture of the computers they were making:

  1. mainframes – PC’s
  2. pc’S – PS/2’s
  3. PS/2’s – PC’s

This excludes the ttanafer from type writers to PC’s.)
This entire ruse, in order to discourage other companies from entering the lucrative typewriter market, and instead to have them waste their effort trying to enter the dead-end, fictitious PC market. How cunning of IBM! The devious bastards. But they were effective though: thanks to that, the type writer business is exclusively theirs! They have no competitors, so now sell all type writers that are being sold.
I can confidently make that claim, because nobody makes / buys typewriters anymore, whereas the machines dominated the business machine market (hence the name International Business Machines), they have been thoroughly replaced by computers.
In order to prove yhe falsegood of this elaborsteclaim, I point you to the logo: the letters IBM divided into 8 lines, for the 8 bit computers they were making & selling.

And Nissan, to pick a car company, also maemkes piston engines for crude-oil-derived fuels, yet now they also produce the Leaf, a full-electric car, and use it to boost their image.
So, what would “Big oil” do? Become big hydrogen, or big solar, or whatever: they’ll adapt to changing circumstances.

Rulerless socialism (ancom-ism) can’t work

Even if you try, socialism (no private property) can not exist. Because ownership is the default state of mind in nature. Look at the African leopard, that drags ITS kill into a tree to keep it out of reach of other predators.

Trying to fight nature is impossible.

 “Socialized ownership” must therefore be enforced by a (ruthless) state, which confiscates property, imprisons people that commit crimes “against the people”. In such a system, the state claims ownership of the people, in Gulag camps. The hypocrisy is flabbergasting. The true crime against the people is imprisoning them in a country, and murdering them when they try to leave (iron curtain).

Ergo: socialism,is egotistical sadism, or sadistic egotism, I haven’t yet found out which comes first.

Socialism (Solzentsyn would approve of calling such an anti-social ideology socialism) lures evil people because it enables them to exert full control over the nameless masses. “Stalin stood on the balcony and lied to us. We applauded and knew he lied. He knew that we knew but still acepts the applause.” (“Apocalypse Stalin“, DVD3, describing  the workers marching past Stalin)

So, whether with or without ruler; socialism can’t work, because it’s all about the regime, making the people (without whom there would be no state) submissive to the state (a totally superfluous institution, which afds nothing to the population)