I'll just repeat the name Alex Krainer here, because I would love to see you discuss the extent of the power of the City of London with him. Its an open question and you two are united in much, but disagree over this.
He's also a very well rounded person (fought in some Balkan war), who is great to listen to about power and economics. He has an optimistic view of a possible future free of parasitical capitalism. I've heard him cross the chasm into DR territory more than once. He recently BTFO'd Tom Luongo in an interview that got pretty heated. It was glorious. Tom was trying to promote the 5D chess theory and Alex ripped him another asshole. I don't think that they can be friends anymore.
Alex has insider knowledge and perspectives on economics that are unique. He was a hedge fund manager and despises our current elites. He has a great sense of humour when mocking them. Krainer reflects a lot of what AA says, but from a different perspective and backgound. He could be won over, if he's not already. I sense that he has deep power levels.
I had offered 100 British pounds for a debate with him, and tried to facilitate that by buying a year membership to this channel or another similar AA product, as I can't get superchats to work during office hours. I didn't need to make the subscription, as its basically a dead channel, but it was a way to try and give AA money to get my way. I want this discussion. What the hell is the City of London, and how influential is it?
Lists methodology for getting an industrial base and trade surpluses is probably not the shot in the modern era. An across the board tariff of 5% might be okay today and maybe 15% worked well in Andrew Jackson’s time.
I would guarantee a trade surplus by cutting off inward loans and inward investment. Including the sale of shares to foreigners. The balance of payments always balances. If you are lending outward and investing outward but not borrowing inward or allowing foreigners to be buying your assets ………… that has to be balanced by a trade surplus.
Sure your currency will tank. I would just wear the weak currency crisis to get the ongoing trade surpluses locked in.
To adapt quickly there ought to be no taxes on sole trader retained earnings. So that you get to a place where every sole trader who serves an exporting big shot can reinvest. You would look at them, see the tired eyes, but know they were hopeful for the future and confident to keep ploughing profits back into business renovation.
I want to formalise what I was explaining before. But first I should mention the key thing for industrialisation is getting your network of work-in-progress transport ….. that doesn’t fight gravity …. Get that improving. That’s flat rail, canals and dirigibles.
But something has changed between Lists time and ours. In his time you restricted goods to industrialise. Inwards goods.
In our time you must restrict funds. Inwards funds. And funds not used for business renovations.
It’s the petrodollar and incoming funds that have been stripping the West of industrial ability. Plus even locally generated funds are used for non wealth creating undertakings.
If we don’t follow this and we go with what worked in the 19th century it will be a catastrophe. Better to have a currency crisis, get quickly into trade surplus, and build back better from there.
So 19th Century think inwards goods. 21st century think inwards funds.
Look at those countries where inwards funds were restricted. Yeah those are the guys whipping our ass on the battlefield. Unfortunately their outwards goods were restricted also and if not they would be rich by now.
Inwards funds are toxic under a funny money regime.
I believe you once had my interview with Frank van Dun on the economy section of your site. Your article here brilliantly addresses the proven impracticality of libertarian economics. An important next step is Othmar Spann’s accounting for thought leadership, the natural skills or mental capacity required for an innovative economy, how these emerge and can be mutually embraced in a corporate economy.
I'll just repeat the name Alex Krainer here, because I would love to see you discuss the extent of the power of the City of London with him. Its an open question and you two are united in much, but disagree over this.
He's also a very well rounded person (fought in some Balkan war), who is great to listen to about power and economics. He has an optimistic view of a possible future free of parasitical capitalism. I've heard him cross the chasm into DR territory more than once. He recently BTFO'd Tom Luongo in an interview that got pretty heated. It was glorious. Tom was trying to promote the 5D chess theory and Alex ripped him another asshole. I don't think that they can be friends anymore.
Alex has insider knowledge and perspectives on economics that are unique. He was a hedge fund manager and despises our current elites. He has a great sense of humour when mocking them. Krainer reflects a lot of what AA says, but from a different perspective and backgound. He could be won over, if he's not already. I sense that he has deep power levels.
I had offered 100 British pounds for a debate with him, and tried to facilitate that by buying a year membership to this channel or another similar AA product, as I can't get superchats to work during office hours. I didn't need to make the subscription, as its basically a dead channel, but it was a way to try and give AA money to get my way. I want this discussion. What the hell is the City of London, and how influential is it?
The city of London is another den of international merchants, a haven for organized crime of the international sort. That's the distillation of it.
Succinct and accurate as far as I can tell!
And congratulations on your wienerschnitzel award.
Lists methodology for getting an industrial base and trade surpluses is probably not the shot in the modern era. An across the board tariff of 5% might be okay today and maybe 15% worked well in Andrew Jackson’s time.
I would guarantee a trade surplus by cutting off inward loans and inward investment. Including the sale of shares to foreigners. The balance of payments always balances. If you are lending outward and investing outward but not borrowing inward or allowing foreigners to be buying your assets ………… that has to be balanced by a trade surplus.
Sure your currency will tank. I would just wear the weak currency crisis to get the ongoing trade surpluses locked in.
To adapt quickly there ought to be no taxes on sole trader retained earnings. So that you get to a place where every sole trader who serves an exporting big shot can reinvest. You would look at them, see the tired eyes, but know they were hopeful for the future and confident to keep ploughing profits back into business renovation.
I want to formalise what I was explaining before. But first I should mention the key thing for industrialisation is getting your network of work-in-progress transport ….. that doesn’t fight gravity …. Get that improving. That’s flat rail, canals and dirigibles.
But something has changed between Lists time and ours. In his time you restricted goods to industrialise. Inwards goods.
In our time you must restrict funds. Inwards funds. And funds not used for business renovations.
It’s the petrodollar and incoming funds that have been stripping the West of industrial ability. Plus even locally generated funds are used for non wealth creating undertakings.
If we don’t follow this and we go with what worked in the 19th century it will be a catastrophe. Better to have a currency crisis, get quickly into trade surplus, and build back better from there.
So 19th Century think inwards goods. 21st century think inwards funds.
Look at those countries where inwards funds were restricted. Yeah those are the guys whipping our ass on the battlefield. Unfortunately their outwards goods were restricted also and if not they would be rich by now.
Inwards funds are toxic under a funny money regime.
Was a good video. Will read.
If wasn't in German.
Ah I'm so stupid.
I believe you once had my interview with Frank van Dun on the economy section of your site. Your article here brilliantly addresses the proven impracticality of libertarian economics. An important next step is Othmar Spann’s accounting for thought leadership, the natural skills or mental capacity required for an innovative economy, how these emerge and can be mutually embraced in a corporate economy.