The article linked above mentions Röpke and Eucken as champions of free market capitalism, so to speak. Ironically, Bernie Sanders is quite in line with many of Walter Eucken's core ideas. For instance, Eucken declared legal responsibility to be an absolute necessity for competition within a market economy. Meaning that under Eucken's notion of capitalism, US prisons would be filled to the brim with white collar criminals from Wall Street and just about every multinational corporation, including Volkswagen.

Ludwig Erhard, credited by many to be the main figure behind the German "Wirtschaftswunder" (nothing wonderous about it), postulated real wage growth in line with productivity and target inflation as an imperative for a working social market economy. Again, very much in line with Bernie Sanders. Maybe even to the left of Sanders. A 5% increase in productivity and a target inflation of 2% requires a wage increase of 7%, otherwise your economy will starve itself of the demand it requires to absorb its increased production. You can steal it from foreign countries, like Germany's been doing for more than a decade now, but that kind of parasitic behaviour is generally frowned upon. Minimum wage in the US according to Erhard would be what now, $25-$30? So much for Sanders' $15...

Sennholz further mentions the CDU as a counterweight to the SPD. Well, the CDU's "Ahlener Programm" in 1947 declared that both marxism and capitalism failed the German people. In fact, it put significant blame for Germany's descent into fascism at the feet of the capitalistic system and called for a complete restart with focus NOT on the pursuit of profit and power, but the well-being of the people. They called for socialism with Christian responsibility, later watered down and known as social market economy or Rhine capitalism.

As for the economic policies conducted by the occupation forces: German industry, and large corporations in particular, were shackled for the role they played during the war. If you work tens of thousands of slaves to their death, you lose your right to... well, anything. If they had stripped IG Farben, Krupp and the likes down to the very bone, nobody could have complained. No economic liberties for the suppliers behind a genocide.

Next in line, the comparison with Germany's European neighbours. Sennholz wrote that piece in '55, so you can't really blame him for it. Italy had more growth from '58 onwards, France had more growth than its devastated neighbour from '62 onwards. The third Axis power, Japan, had significantly more growth from '58 onwards.

Why did some European and Asian countries grew much more rapidly than the US? Fair Deal? Nope, Bretton-Woods. Semi-fixed exchange rates caused the Deutsche Mark and the Yen to be ridiculously undervalued compared to the Dollar, thus increasing German and Japanese competitiveness at the cost of the US. Stable trade relations created by the semi-fixed exchange rates plus the highly expansive monetary policy in the US – that's what boosted Germany's economy most of all. Sort of like China over the last two decades, except we were needed as a bulwark against the evil, evil Commies, so the US kept going full throttle.

Our glorious policians tried the same policies (Adenauer/Erhard) in East Germany after reunification, even though global conditions were vastly different, and the result is the mess we now have over there. The entire industry was burned to the ground when they set the exchange rate too high, thus completely destroying what little competitiveness remained. Two trillion DM later, still no improvement. A job well done, truly.

Anyway, if anything, Bernie Sanders' program is closer to post-war German social market economic principles than to the East-German bastard of socialism, state capitalism and planned economy imposed by an autocratic system. However, even that messed up system produced significantly less poverty, both in quality and quantity, than the current US corporatocracy. No homelessness, no starvation, proper healthcare for everyone – reality in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). And despite the fact that they were used as cheap labour for western corporations, no less. My first Ikea shelf was produced by our oppressed brothers and sisters in the East. The Wall "protected" the West from cheap labour while letting goods pass right through – splendid membrane, that one.

PS: Since that article was written in '55, I have to mention one of my city's most famous citizens: Otto Brenner. He was elected head of the IG Metal, this country's most influential trade union, in 1956 after having shared the office since 1952. The policies he fought for, and pushed through, during his 16 years in charge of the union are very much in line with what Sanders is campaigning for.

"Although some intolerance, bigotry, and lust for persecution is still left in religious matters, it is unlikely that religious passion will kindle wars in the near future. The aggressive spirit of our age stems from another source, from endeavors to make the state totalitarian and to deprive the individual of autonomy."
- Ludwig von Mises
(Theory and History, p. 64)

Rand was certainly not a great writer (as is often the case with those who write novels in a language that isn't native to them). As such, there's no comparison between Rand's use of English and say, Dickens' (but you could probably say that about Dickens and almost anyone else, John Oliver included. And Harry Potter isn't much better than The Fountainhead! Or most popular fiction for that matter.)
I doubt most of Oliver's audience have read Crime and Punishment, or The Brothers Karamzov, or The Sound and the Fury. I doubt Oliver's fans are any more "intellectual" or well-read than Rand's, quite honestly.

But Rand didn't even believe in small government. Just limited government. She was certainly no anarchist. John Galt was, perhaps, but not Rand. (The character is not the author.) Both Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand learned from Ludwig Von Mises, and they took what they learned in very different directions.

Yet, most of Oliver's audience probably haven't even read Rand and she's hardly that much of a contemporary topic worth talking about.. So why would Oliver (HBO) want to spend valuable broadcast time talking about her? She wouldn't be a "thing" if they chose to ignore it, and yet they aren't. Why? Might this bit be (the $beneficiary of those who are) uneasy with a potential Rand Paul presidential run, thus needing a straw man with which to link him with "libertarians" and Ayn Rand?

All this "OMG Rand!" going around, and yet her work continues to stick around long after she's gone.. And will likely remain so, given ^programs^ (and commenters) like this and their unwillingness to let it go.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Ludwig-Von-Mises-Liberty-and-Economics
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Hayek-on-Scialism-3-23

Ok so, been a month and 3 weeks, and shagen454 axeded.so..

ChogBlog 1


Ok so, been trying to figure out the best way to inspire myself musically without the use of my un-damaged vocal range, with a go-to musical instrument battery I know my way well-enough around to use as a framework for a studio-I can get sounds outta anything, have access to any rudimentary keyboard but am flexible with strings, woodwinds, bass. Now you have to understand if yer mind interprets a musical instrument as some outer-space device requiring a manual or instruction via direct-transmission in order to fire: I can coax pleasing tones from vegetables. What I need is a new kick. I can go for miles rendering compositions only I want to hear with a guitar, harmonica, saxophone-IO crave arrangements, and bass and drums..

Can Keep great time and love percussion, vibes, marimba, steel-drum but never had a set to wail on worth a fuck till now: Same as it ever was….

Worlds’ the oyster, and fuck the dumbshitz, I have access by nature of incarnation and geographical locale and resources to make anything happen-Goin’ for percussion and bass, and solo-Only I can work with a band of miscreants, those dwelling inside my own head, be-damn! The logistics of other fleshapoids in the way for the task of rendering!!....Why bother? Make it and take it to musicians I don’t have to fuck with-Maybe I should have been Quincy Jones fucking adopted white baby…..


Shootin' for a fat stack 'o pearly-white Slingerlandz, maybe Ludwig-Need 2 stellar floor toms and oh fuck....adding shit already-!

So thick' n fatty, that same Ludwig kit of his with few variations over the years. GoddDAMMN I wish he hadn't choked on his own vodka barf!!

Glenn Ford also appeared in these films in ascending order from 1939 until 1941
*(Imagine the film titles as thoroughbred quarter horse names and his character's names,that of their jockeys in the big race, with a seasoned announcer at the microphone lathering-on the color for the listening audience)

Texas
jockey-Tod Ramsey

So Ends Our Night
J-Ludwig Kern

Blondie Plays Cupid
J-Charlie

The Lady in Question
J-Pierre Morestan

Babies for Sale
J-Steve Burton/Oscar Hanson

Men Without Souls
J-Johnny Adams

Convicted Woman
J-Jim Brent

My Son Is Guilty
J-Barney

Heaven with a Barbed Wire Fence
J-Joe Riley

ANNNNND, they're OFF!

Yes. Right wing American capitalist fundamentalists (The Koch Brothers, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard) redefined the term in the 1970s to reflect both corporatist and neo-confederate values respectively.

The so-called "libertarians" of today want to reset the clock on civil rights, labor rights, social welfare and democracy, favoring instead a complete removal of all barriers to corporate power. They may or may not be well intended, but their deceptively authoritarian movement is an affront to liberty all the same, and should be treated as such. >> ^grinter:

"Liberty slows down"?
..did someone redefine "liberty" when I wasn't looking?

Oh, okay, so you believe everything you read. That's not very intelligent, or at least it's not very SMART. The bible was written hundreds of years ago, and has since been translated and re-translated to and from dozens of different languages. Individuals and groups in power throughout different points in history have taken it upon themselves to modify the bible, adding and omitting pieces here and there to suit their agenda. They knew that gullible sheep, unable to think for themselves, are easily swayed by religion, and what better way to control a populace than by attacking their very basis for the way they live their lives?

God pre-exists everything. We know God exists because He lets us know, and He would let you know that if you sought Him out. The New Testament was written 2000 years ago. The Old Testament is at least 1000 years older than that. We have copies of the early manuscripts so we know what the original bibles looked like. So the translations today are accurate, and this idea that they are corrupt is just outright false. Yes, man has used the bible for evil ends, but this is no different from anything else man does. The very reason that Jesus Christ came to Earth is because man is so desperately wicked and needs Gods redemption.

Additionally, if one is intelligent, and they believe in ancient myths, obviously they're going to be some of the greatest minds the world has ever known, right? That's why all the geniuses of the world are devout Christians or whatever religion you want to name, right? WRONG.

NASA is not run by rocket scientists who go to church on Sunday. Great inventors and genius-level individuals such as Stephen Hawking are not religious specifically BECAUSE they are intelligent. They are able to think for themselves, not be told what to think.

Some of the greatest minds in history were devout Christians..and some of the greatest scientists:

Francis Bacon - Originated the scientific method
Johannes Kepler - Laws of Planetary motion
Galileo Galilei - Father of modern astronomy
Nicolaus Copernicus - Heliocentric Universe
James Clerk Maxwell - Electromagnetic field
Neils Bohr - the Atom
Louis Pasteur - germ theory of disease
Rene Descartes - Philosopher and mathematician
Issac Newton - Invented classical mechanics
Max Planck - Founder of quantum mechanics

A lot of modern science is built on the backs of Christian thinkers, as you can see, and that is just a short list. Today, around 10 percent of scientists believe in God. At least 50 nobel laureates believe in God. Now, if you want to talk about great thinkers, how about Albert Einstein? He believed in God. Although not a Christian, here is what he had to say about Jesus:

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."7

Of course, religion and science are completely unrelated topics, and one does not have to be non-secular in order to be a scientist, but typically, the two mindsets would conflict, as religionists base their beliefs off of emotion and other irrational concepts. Scientists use a thought process, experimentation, and ruling out possibilities in order to come to conclusions and figure out FACTS about the universe around us. There are scientists who believe in the possibility of a god, but it takes a different form than that of some all-seeing being that created everything. I'll never try to explain that to you, though, as you're too blinded by foolish nonsense that has been force-fed to you since childhood.

I will leave you with this though: Adam and Eve. Here's some fruit. I'm going to tempt you with it, and then create a snake to TALK to you and tell you you should eat some of it, and THEN I'm gunna come back and be all "OH SHIT WHAT THE FUCK?! I SMITE THEE FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!" just to fuck with humanity. Wow. You worship a pretty evil, and vindictive force. Why would you want to do that? The fucker's up there just fucking with us like a little kid with a magnifying glass over an ant hill. Jesus christ, you must really enjoy misery. I'll take the reality of humanity surviving on our own acquiescence and compassion over that bullshit any day!

I base my belief off of personal revelation. I was an agnostic my entire life and raised without religion, and I was a secular humanist and a strict materialist who didn't see any evidence for God or spirit. God woke me up to the truth and let me know He is real. If you want science facts, you only have to examine the first page of the bible:

In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER)

And God said, “Let there be light (ENERGY),” and there was light.

It took mankind 3000 years to catch up and figure out the Universes foundation is based on these principles. There is also no better description which uniquely fits the big bang theory. Creation ex-nihilio, which is creation from nothing.

The serpent you're referring to was Satan. God put the tree there because He gave mankind free will to follow His commands or not. He also warned them of the consequences if they ate of the fruit. Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and believe the lie because Satan promised them they would have Gods power if they did it. So, instead of trusting God, they lusted after His power and betrayed Him. That's why they were kicked out of the garden. Their sin brought death into the world.

No, God didn't damn us for eternity. It's the very reason God sent His son Jesus to die on the cross, to save us from this fate we created and redeem mankind. So we could have eternal life with God again in the Kingdom of Heaven. We are sinners, and the wages of sin is death. Gods gift of salvation is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I had a dream about this movie once...

Oceanic Flight 815, en route to Earth 2, crash lands on a desert planet infested with giant sand worms and zombies. In an attempt to get home, the survivors encounter Jeffrey Sinclair on board a space station caught in a time rift, who reveals that he has been chasing Q who is commanding an army of half-Scarran, half-Sylons with Goa'uld symbiotes to conquer a magical island in Neverland. And the only one who can save the universe is Jim Raynor, captain of a stolen Firefly, and his life partner, a half Wookie, half Time Lord who has sworn a life debt to the captain. They have a depressed robot sex slave who isn't attracted to them and each of them owns a power ring, bestowed to them by the Guardians of the Universe (who are all dwarves, except for one of them who is Tom Waits).

You don't even want to know who the crew of the Firefly is. It will blow your fucking mind. Ok, I'll tell you: Napoleon, Socrates, Sigmund Fruuud, Billy the Kid, Genghis Kahn, and Ludwig Van; then for some reason Whoopie Goldberg is there with William Shatner, Patrick Stewart, and Malcolm McDowell, who can't stop pining over Beethoven. At the end of the movie, the crew is clean cut, the robots are all shiny, and the ghosts of Bill Hicks, Rufus, Obi-wan, Pizza the Hut, Dr. Frankenfurter, and Alf are all sitting around waiting for you to wake up -- but, when you wake up -- you're Homer Simpson! OMG don't tell ANYONE about the twist ending or the sequel where he meets Hank Hill who gets abducted by aliens and meets spooky Fox Mulder and that sexy redhead Leeloo.

My mind is exploding! There may be another me who isn't as awesome as the real me and enjoyed the movie The Notebook... Pshhhhhh -- Frell the frack off. Every alternate reality of me smokes pot and makes or plays video games. Stop trying to change me, universe!

@imstellar28

The primary complaint about the Austrian school, and much of Ludwig Von Mises' work, is his utter refusal to quantify anything. I'm familiar with the school, and frankly, it doesn't really address the problem of the business cycle, other than by hoping and wishing for charity by the rich. To be honest, I'm much more impressed with the work of his brother Richard Von Mises, who understood the importance of quantifiable predictions when suggesting a falsifiable theory. Frankly, arguing for "Keynesian economics" isn't what anyone is doing anymore. The monetarists laid that to rest years ago. While granted, modern economics gets much of its inspiration from JMK, the details of the theory have changed drastically since his work. Often I find it's the Austrian schoolers that are unwilling to accept facts (read data) that call their theory into question.

With regards to regulation, the question is not more or less, it's how can we regulate more efficient and effectively. I think there are many serious questions that need to be addressed that have been brought to the fore by this crisis that require an act of congress, or even some international body. Not least among them is "what is money?" From my own reading, I can tell you that money is much closer to something like debt than it is to something like rocks, or metal, and that is as it should be. The value of debt fluctuates with credit, so too should the value of currency with the fiduciary competence of the central bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
http://www.amazon.com/Remarks-Colour-Ludwig-Wittgenstein/dp/0631116419
http://personal.denison.edu/~faurc/color/RemarksOnColoursm.pdf

http://videosift.com/video/Wittgenstein-Discusses-Philosophy-and-the-Nature-of-Language

He did receive a lot of opposition, but he also met with quite a bit of success. He was appointed the chair of experimental physics in Graz and of theoretical physics at the University of Munich, so he certainly wasn't on the outside of the scientific establishment at the time and he had a number of supporters for his theory. The opposition certainly didn't help with his unhappy state of affairs at the end, though.

I'm not really arguing that the title is wrong, I just don't like calling the life of a man that accomplished so much tragic for my own reasons.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
He met with some really heavy opposition during his time. And while I think he may have been bipolar, the vast majority of the scientific community outright rejected his theories. Certainly saying the equation killed him is a hyperbole, but his life was most definitely tragic. He believed without evidence in atoms came up with probabilistic theories that were seen as in direct opposition to Newtonian Mechanics. For most his life people rejected his theories... that wears on people.

Part2

BBC also did a beautiful piece on Boltzmann. It is a story many young physicists hear when taking Stat Mech. Often it is given as a warning that not only should we not take ourselves and work to seriously, but you should treat even the most bizarre ideas with respect.