Comments by "chocomalk" (@chocomalk) on "The Real News Network"
channel.
-
54
-
26
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
16
-
16
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Calvin Miner
I don't think you have actually read the book as the first chapter dispels what you think his point is.
The Scandinavian countries are based on the "Nordic model".
It was written in 1944, long before said model and was concerning "present democracies" IE UK/USA.
The USA has had a centrally planned economy for a long time via the Fed, they set policy, the market follows and those "Scandinavian countries" adhere to international free trade policies and are free market capitalists mixed with socialist policy.
Norway in fact, in Hayek's day, was Keynesian so I am not sure what point the comparison is supposed to make.
As far as those countries being "free/open/democratic" that is debatable.
Norway still has a king who still retains ultimate power much as all commonwealth countries including "independent" Canada. Each has a major representative in parliament and a privy council that meets in secret. If you think that is coincidence, you don't understand the game very well.
Canada is another supposed "social democracy" and I can tell you it is nothing of the sort at its heart. It is slowly becoming a corporate dictatorship much like the USA.
He also takes into account business but separates the fact that once one is in the power structure and can influence policy, there is no ostensible difference.
Funny how people blame corporations for lobbying but not the politicians that take the bribe when it is their JOB and DUTY to be "civil servants".
His point is even a billionaire can't come close to the harm a central authority could cause unless he can directly influence them.
Just because his critique/warning cannot be applied to every case does not make it invalid, particularly given these things take time.
Economies are the same way. Sometimes they look great until they collapse unexpectedly.
The USA/UK model he critiques proves him right. UK is Orwell 101 and USA is Orwell 2.0 both of which set economic policy of numerous nations via the use of their currency, loans and the markets.
Sure you can "freely" invest but there is no "free market" as it is HIGHLY regulated.
The thing is, people mistake this regulation as something that is put in place to help the populace but it is regulated to be the opposite.
They have regulated the hell out of not only their own people but at least half of the worlds nations.
Bretton woods/Marshall-Plan/Petro-dollar/IMF/BIS/etc = Centrally planned economic structure on a massive scale.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
deathtokoalas Dude it's like saying Europe is not Norway, Sweden, England, France, the Netherlands, Austria etc...all descendants of Germanic tribes. It's like saying Western Germany is Eastern France or vice versa.
You are looking at an orgy and finding a few parts you don't like without recognizing the attaching parts.
Meanwhile the Romans, the Turks, , The Brits, The Russians, THE GREAT GAME, the(insert name)....
1
-
1
-
deathtokoalas
Prussian = Germanic, not sure where you are going with that lol.
1. Your vision of this "Europe" as a geological location does not take into account the artificial borders that exclude Russia/Asia etc. We are discussing pre civilized Europe during a time known as the great migration. A time when Europe did not exist as a set location and people came from all over. Sure, same rocks, but it's a whole lot bigger if you add all the stuff it is attached too without those convenient borders.
2. Germanic tribes, is there a point?
And at what point are they not "Germanic" even though they hail from the same stock?
You mention Goths as if they are not Germanic.
3. Yes they moved south as the Celts moved west, neither were "indigenous.
And you quoted a 2000 year timeline, the Celts, what we know of them, predate that and were mainly affected by Rome. They were pushed, Germanic tribes were pushed, Slavic tribes were pushed... they all did pushing as well.
4. This is subject to a very long timeline, but it is pretty safe to say that regardless of who was ruling who, the lines have remained consistent for at least 1000 years give or take and were pretty much formed prior to that.
5. Funny we are communicating in German?
No in English...why is that? Because there are other players in this you are not addressing. So the next language most likely for us to speak in would be German?...no it would be French. Although influenced by German, we consider many European languages to be "Latin" based. How could that be?
You say this as if it is uniquely German.
6. Your point ignores everyone else, this makes you a bigot.
In the same boat as Germany would be every tribe/culture you mention and some you have not.
So is there a point?
Besides being a bigot and pointing out one guilty party among many?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1