The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
Are We Brewing a New Feudalism?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The answer to the question is “YES.” The large bailed-out creditors will end up with the property of the non-bailed-out debtors who are being pushed deeper into debt with “bail-out loans” and fees and penalties for missed debt payments. Write-offs for the One Percent, and more indebtedness for everyone else.

Turn your mind to the economy. The US has a work force of 164,000,000. The unemployment forecast from the work closedowns is 30%. That would mean 49,000,000 people who are potential rioters. Many of these people were already living paycheck to paycheck, could not raise $400, and their debts leave them no discretionary income. As they could barely service their debts when employed, how do they service them when unemployed and when their small businesses are closed and incurring costs but have no revenues? Loans further indebt them. The cash payouts to the unemployed might cover food and housing but will not service their debts.

Fast food franchises and stores in malls are saying they are not paying their rents for three months. Mall owners won’t be able to pay their creditors. The bailout works for no one except those who caused the problem. As they are being bailed out, they will have the money to buy up or foreclose on the bankrupted businesses. More property will be concentrated in fewer hands.

The bail-out scheme concocted by the New York banks and Trump’s Treasury Secretary, who earned the name “the foreclosure king” during his Wall Street career, leaves creditors whole and debtors deeper in debt.

The more debt is concentrated in fewer hands and the more indebted everyone else becomes, the less consumer purchasing power there is to drive the economy. The foreclosed assets become less valuable as their profitability declines with consumer purchasing power.

The destruction of the US economy has been underway since global corporations moved middle class jobs offshore. It has been underway since the financial sector diverted a larger share of consumer income to the service of debt. It has been underway since corporations invested their profits in buying back their own shares instead of expanding their production capabilities. It has been underway since Quantitative Easing inflated stock and bond prices beyond realistic values. It has been going on since the rules against concentration were set aside and the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed. It has been going on since endless wars crowded out infrastructure investment and social safety net expansion.

Is this a plot or stupidity? Whatever the answer, the economy is being destroyed.

The economic problem is that private sector debt, both personal and corporate, is too great to be paid. This problem existed prior to the closedown. The closedown means that there is even less income with which to service the unsustainable level of debt. This is not a problem that can be fixed with more debt.

The problem is that banks lend to finance the purchase of existing financial assets, not to expand the economy’s productive potential.

The problem is that corporations use their profits and borrow money in order to buy back their own equity instead of investing in their businesses. The executives indebt the corporations while decapitalizing them, and they are rewarded for doing so with “performance bonuses.”

ORDER IT NOW

The problem is that global corporations thinking short-term moved high-productivity, high-value-added US jobs to Asia, thus reducing earned income in the US, impairing state and local tax base, and causing the Federal Reserve to substitute a growth in consumer debt in place of the lost consumer income growth.

The people in charge of the fix are only fixing it for themselves and in a short-sighted way. There is only one way to fix the situation, and that is to write down private sector debts to levels that can be serviced. As the creditors are being bailed out regardless, their loan losses don’t matter.

The bank and corporate bailouts are an opportunity to fix the economy in other important ways. In effect, the bailouts amount to nationalization. The government should accept the ownership that it is purchasing. Then the government can break up the “banks too big to fail” and separate investment from commercial banking without having to pass new Glass-Steagall legislation and without having to battle against financial lobbying in Congress. Once broken up, the banks could be sold off. This would take enormous vulnerability out of the financial system and restore financial competition. With corporations in government hands, the jobs could be brought home from overseas. The middle class would be restored.

These measures together with a debt writedown would restore consumer purchasing power. Pent-up demand would propel the economy to higher growth as occurred following World War II.

This is a real solution to a real problem. But with the One Percent in charge of the problem, we are not going to get a real solution. We are going to get more money used to push up prices of financial assets and paper over unsustainable debt and a dying economy with an artificially-inflated stock market.

The elite have failed us too many times. It is time to dethrone them.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Coronavirus, Debt, Financial Bailout, Unemployment 
Hide 39 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. c matt says:

    I don’t know if Dr. Roberts or the editors came up with the headline, but calling it feudalism is unfair to real feudalism. The Feudal lords were tied to their lands, and their prosperity was directly linked to the well being of their serfs. No (or dead) serfs meant no one working the land meant no crops meant no prosperity for the Lords. This is something else entirely. Robber barons or banksters is more apropos.

  2. MarkinLA says:

    The problem is that global corporations thinking short-term moved high-productivity, high-value-added US jobs to Asia, thus reducing earned income in the US, impairing state and local tax base, and causing the Federal Reserve to substitute a growth in consumer debt in place of the lost consumer income growth.

    The problem is that global corporations thinking short-term moved high-productivity, high-value-added US jobs to Mexico, thus reducing earned income in the US, impairing state and local tax base, and causing the Federal Reserve to substitute a growth in consumer debt in place of the lost consumer income growth.

    There fixed it for you. Thought I was going to let you misdirect what was originally Reagan era policies to other people? Remember the leveraged buyout binge – another Reagan era phenomenon (made possible by tax code changes) that was the beginning of using borrowed money to buy back stock.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  3. BeB says:

    Amen to that closing paragraph!

  4. If these developments do not rouse Americans from their insouciance, Paul, I don’t know what will.

  5. GeeBee says:
    @c matt

    Well said. Feudalism is one of those easy targets that people unthinkingly trot out in order to provide a suitable ‘scare factor’ to underscore the scenario they are painting. Yet, like invoking the hated Third Reich, it is totally inaccurate. As Benjamin Disraeli said, in a speech to the House of Commons in 1846, where he unsuccessfully sought to block the move to abolish the ‘corn laws’ (an Act of Parliament that rang the long and protracted death-knell of the old landed aristocracy):

    When [in 1066] the Conqueror carved out parts of the land, and introduced the feudal system, he said to the recipient, “You shall have that estate, but you shall do something for it: you shall feed the poor; you shall endow the Church; you shall defend the land in case of war; and you shall execute justice and maintain truth to the poor for nothing.”

    Karl Marx actually stated (in Das Kapital) that he acknowledged feudalism as being a form of socialism, which he called (perhaps unsurprisingly) Feudal Socialism. He, of course, anathematised it as being ‘reactionary’, because it failed to pass his own rather silly precepts, such as ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ and the ‘permanent revolution’, both of which, contra Hobbes, resulted in a society in which the component parts would inevitably devour and destroy one another, rather than come together to sustain a society ‘with harmony in all its parts’ (to quote Oswald Spengler).

    This old and successful, if paternal, form of socialism depended upon the concept of noblesse oblige and by and large it worked very well. It is all very fine to point the finger of blame at an oligarchic rentier class, but the old feudal lords were far from being that. They were more akin to the strong kings of Near-Eastern antiquity, who kept the disastrous plague of debt and usury at bay. European feudalism was in some ways very similar (at least until the seventeenth century, but that’s another story altogether).

  6. Now we see the reason behind the “plandemic”. Smokescreen for a bailout (wealth concentration operation). Time to expose the fake flu.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  7. @MarkinLA

    NCR moved production from Dayton OH to Taiwan in the mid 70s. Roughly 40k lost jobs. Reagan wasn’t in office. The contolled demolition of the US economy has been going on for a lot longer than the Reagan era.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  8. Thomasina says:

    Didn’t the Senate just pass a bill to increase payments to workers?

    “In a historic expansion of unemployment insurance, the federal government would give jobless workers an extra $600 a week on top of their state benefits for four months as part of the $2 trillion stimulus bill the Senate passed unanimously late Wednesday night.”

    For many workers, they will end up in a better position than when the virus started. If they get $500.00 per week in state benefits, and then receive this additional $600.00 per week, that’s $1,100.00 per week. Times four = $4,400.00/month.

    Do I have this wrong?

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  9. @GeeBee

    Here’s my broken record. Marx’s views of socialism were not the views of the large majority of his contemporaries.
    While it is true that the feudal system is what you describe, it was more than that. The feudal lords had a reason to do what they did. They, as many still do today, saw themselves as caretakers of the estate for their inheritors. It was long term thinking. Noblesse oblige to be sure. But there were tithe cottages built for the serfs/workers, and they were allowed small spaces to grow their own food. What they “owed” to the lord was labour, and compared to today, it was less.
    I wouldn’t call it socialism, however. Otherwise, good summary.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  10. MarkinLA says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Yes I know, the maquiladoras predate Reagan. He just wanted to put it on steroids for his corporate puppet masters. Maquiladoras could only be within a narrow region close to the border. NAFTA made it the whole country. NAFTA was not about trade or tariffs it was about property rights for foreign owned assets.

    The movement of NCR may have been to get contracts in Asia since their mainframe business was drying up in the US (I worked at Burroughs then where it was also drying up). Without government contracts Burroughs would have had to close their mainframe lines sooner.

    Carter deregulated industries which caused a lot of damage. Everybody gets some blame but the guy who would have done the most damage (if not for Mexican reluctance) should get most of the blame and that person was Reagan.

  11. MarkinLA says:
    @Thomasina

    No, but most states don’t give anywhere near 500 dollars for unemployment insurance. Gramnesty was complaining about this. A laid off high school worker at McDonalds will get his 100 dollar unemployment and 600 benefit instead of his normal 300 dollar paycheck.

    It only lasts for 4 months. Gramnesty was crying that people will intentionally lay about to collect the unemployment insurance. Yes, college kids and other people in and out of crap jobs will do so but not people who need those jobs since once the extra 600 dollars ends they will be living on far less.

    The whole bill is loaded with people getting money they shouldn’t. I read somewhere that people on Social Security will be getting 200 dollars a month extra as well as the 1200 one time payment. These people are already living on what they get from Social Security. If they are at an old folks home, they are already being subsidized by their state and the extra money will go to the home and not them. None of that makes any sense.

  12. @Thomas Milton

    Maybe you should visit a NY hospital and go into one of the rooms of an infected patient without a mask and let us know just how fake it is. But to make sure its as fake as you claim, maybe you should go to multiple rooms every day for a week or two. Then report back.

    • Troll: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @NPleeze
  13. Biff says:

    Is this a plot or stupidity?

    Combination of both? Or natural human greed playing itself out? The combination of mans’ stupidity, arrogance, and pride being a virus in itself to sicken, and kill off the worst perpetrators to finally cleanse itself of the disease.

    Nature has the last laugh.
    Nature is self correcting.
    Nature wins again.

  14. @c matt

    I don’t know if Dr. Roberts or the editors came up with the headline, but calling it feudalism is unfair to real feudalism.

    Well, it’s used like the term ‘fascist’.

    ‘Feudal’ in the political lexicon just means reactionary oligarchism.

  15. NPleeze says:

    It is time to dethrone them.

    Paul’s manifesto?

    Government should definitely get ownership of companies being bailed out – receivership is the better term, a court-administered affair, and the various operating segments split off 100% to the public (publicized online auction IPOs, no underwriting fees, no “favored” investors, just advertising for the auction), with the management team getting a percentage of the IPO proceeds.

    Too little focus has been put on the Supreme Court. That pernicious dictatorship has done more to destroy the US than even the Fed. The sanctification of corruption, via the Citizens United case, was the last nail in the coffin.

  16. NPleeze says:
    @davidgmillsatty

    Ooooohhh! We’re all so scared of your big bad flu! We’re gonna cower in our basements under our mom’s apron just like you! We, too, want to be gullible sheep destroying our liberty and economy in the name of oligarch power and greed!

    Down with the middle class! Long live the oligarchs!

    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @Republic
  17. @c matt

    “The Feudal lords were tied to their lands, and their prosperity was directly linked to the well being of their serfs”

    Agreed. Not that feudalism was great, and not that there weren’t brutal nobles who abused their power, but in many parts of Europe the wealth of the nobility stemmed largely from agriculture. That’s one reason why the aristocracy started interbreeding with the merchant class later on, since industrialization and the profits of colonization (e.g., sugar colonies in the New World) became far superior sources of income.

    Let’s not forget that it was the Barons of England who forced the King to alleviate the suffering of the peasantry caused by Jewish usury. Right there in the Magna Carta, albeit you won’t find modern summaries mentioning that portion.

    • Replies: @lloyd
  18. GeeBee says:
    @Curmudgeon

    I don’t think I’d actually call it socialism either, if only because in trying to conflate feudalism with socialism, in the context of modern general ignorance regarding both history and politics, one would find few converts to one’s view! But I can none the less see why Marx regarded it as such. Your point about tied cottages and their own piece of land for the serfs is of course accurate. I didn’t flesh out my defence of feudalism, as it would carry the risk of becoming too verbose.

    Carlyle (a friend and contemporary of Dickens) is often regarded as a ‘right-wing’ philosopher. I find him more than this: he opened my eyes to the only true political bifurcation in Western history, which is to say that between Traditionalism and Modernism. The former can be described as a society predicated upon spiritual values; the latter by one worshipping materialism. God and Mammon, with the latter having all too successfully emerged as victor at the end of a progress commencing in the early-seventeenth century.

    All of the political and religious revolutions that have been implemented since that time have had, as their stated purpose, the objective of ‘setting the people free’. In reality, they have been furtive and seditious attempts by the mercantile/oligarchic class to install itself on the ruins of throne and altar.

    In any case, what a weasel word is ‘free’! When the masses are ‘set free’ from the security of feudalism, with its free housing, free food, free fuel for the hearth, (to say nothing of a hundred and more days off work each year) and thrown instead into a world made for them by industrialists and merchants, are they really happier? What few realise, brainwashed and propagandised as they are, is that in these feudal societies the lack of ‘freedom’ – or perhaps we should use the sacred term ‘Liberty’ – was conducive not to repression and misery, but to comfort and security. Until the advent of Modernism, workers very often were more or less a part of their feudal master’s property, and the dictates of sound husbandry therefore applied to them: they must be nurtured and cared for in order to maintain the master’s assets in good order.

    The ‘good Jew’ Oscar Levy put it most succinctly, in his Foreword to George Pitt-Rivers’ 1919 work on the Russian Revolution The World Significance of the Russian Revolution:

    Disraeli pointed out long ago that Christianity is nothing but “Judaism for the people”. The Ideal of Democracy contained in this appeal of the Jews to the people was their successful battle cry, their most wonderful propaganda work, their Deus vult! that finally forced the world to follow them. With it they have inspired—or, if you will, infected—Lollards and Hussites, Protestants and Puritans, Socialists and Bolshevists alike. Now Democracy, as we all know, declares—or pretends to proclaim— everybody free and equal: it was therefore bound to destroy the bond, feudal or patriarchal, between lord and serf, master and servant, and it replaced it, had to replace it, by another bond (a bond it had to invent for the occasion) that of wages and salaries. Democracy, as we all know, abolished slavery—that natural slavery in which the master took an interest in his slaves, because they were part and parcel of his most valuable property; but it re-introduced it in the form of Wage Tyranny, by means of which the ” freed ” serf could be freely exploited and even squashed out like a lemon without any harm being done to the Master’s interests. Thus was the end result of this glorious liberty principle of the Reformation and the Revolution: the finest theory that has ever been invented for the most miserable of all practices, that have ever defiled this world. No doubt the Jews are responsible for this, as they are responsible for everything, because they are the spiritual fathers of Democracy and therefore of plutocracy.

    Quite so Mr Levy, quite so…

  19. @GeeBee

    “permanent revolution” was not Marx, it was Trotsky. Off hand i cant recall where its been practiced.
    Everyone seems to get bent out of shape by PCR’s use of feudalism as a metaphor.
    I believe that the metaphor goes no further than this: feudalism results in a difficult to break bond between serf & Lord.
    Today that bond[age] is based on debt “serfdom”. Capital’s power is vastly enhanced, directly & indirectly thru the debt relationship.

    • Replies: @Parfois1
    , @GeeBee
  20. @NPleeze

    So, you’ll report back on the “big bad flu” after your the hospital visits ?
    As an Unz commentator, I look forward to your first hand analytical view of the situation. We lack such concrete reporting. Well done, this man !

    • Replies: @NPleeze
  21. onebornfree says: • Website

    “The government should accept the ownership that it is purchasing. Then the government can break up the “banks too big to fail” and separate investment from commercial banking without having to pass new Glass-Steagall legislation and without having to battle against financial lobbying in Congress. Once broken up, the banks could be sold off. This would take enormous vulnerability out of the financial system and restore financial competition. With corporations in government hands, the jobs could be brought home from overseas. The middle class would be restored.”

    This just in:

    “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic” H.L.Mencken

    No regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Jedi Night
  22. Parfois1 says:
    @animalogic

    “permanent revolution” was not Marx, it was Trotsky. Off hand i cant recall where its been practiced.

    You right …and you can’t recall where it has been practised, because it hasn’t. Or rather, only in his head – until Mercader liberated it with the icepick.

  23. Miro23 says:

    With corporations in government hands, the jobs could be brought home from overseas. The middle class would be restored.

    This is not so easy. First of all, a country needs a wide and deep set of skills, first class national technical education, large scale supplier networks and government support and planning backing up world class manufacturing corporations.

    All of this grows organically. It took the Chinese 40 years and a massive national commitment to arrive where they today – and it goes without saying that they were united in the effort.

    The USA is not showing signs of even remotely being able to do anything comparable.

  24. GeeBee says:
    @animalogic

    If I may say so, while you are right that it is most often used to refer to ‘Trotsky’s’ (i.e. Bronstein’s) own take on Marxism, the expression was originally that of Marx and Engels. I quote ‘La Wik’ on the subject:

    Permanent revolution is the strategy of a revolutionary class pursuing its own interests independently and without compromise or alliance with opposing sections of society. As a term within Marxist theory, it was first coined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels by at least 1850, but since then it has been used to refer to different concepts by different theorists, most notably Leon Trotsky.

    Marx first used the term in the phrase “by substituting permanent war for permanent revolution” in a passage from The Holy Family (1844) in which he wrote:

    Napoleon presented the last battle of revolutionary terror against the bourgeois society which had been proclaimed by this same Revolution, and against its policy. Napoleon, of course, already discerned the essence of the modern state; he understood that it is based on the unhampered development of bourgeois society, on the free movement of private interest, etc. He decided to recognise and protect this basis. He was no terrorist with his head in the clouds. Yet at the same time he still regarded the state as an end in itself and civil life only as a treasurer and his subordinate which must have no will of its own. He perfected the terror by substituting permanent war for permanent revolution.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  25. @onebornfree

    “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic”

    At one time, govts enforced laws against labor unions. Were men idiots who wanted to change that?

    At one time, govts enforced laws supporting slavery. Were men idiots who wanted to change that?

    Is any change to law idiotic? What changes would you support?

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @onebornfree
  26. Truth3 says:

    PCR is smart as a whip… but…

    He needs to do three things.

    1. Stop using Euphamisms for the Jews. It ain’t the 1%. It’s the 100% Jews.

    2. Pound home relentlessly the only solution worth having if it can happen without bloodshed… honest money.

    3. Get people to realize we are in a War. The Jews dclared War on Mankind long ago (millenia). The War never ended… we just put down our guard.

    God Bless PCR for as long as we have him. PCR, your legacy will shine bright with the above. I know you won’t do it (I’m sure you saw checks made out to Mossad when you were in the Treasury long ago)… because you know the awfulness of that gang of cut-throats… but Brave Men are the ones revered in the next world, where your treasure out to lay.

    It’s time to stop straddling the fence. ou can’t keep your butt on two chairs forever.

    Time to stand up. Do like Lindbergh, Coughlin, and Christ. Name the problem, and work for the Solution.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  27. anon[974] • Disclaimer says:

    We should be so lucky as to live under feudalism. This state is a 60s-vintage third world type kleptocracy propped up by a police state. The civilized world’s term for this is a weak state: it lacks protective capacity, so to perpetuate itself it substitutes repressive capacity. Throw in the state’s crimes against humanity (systematic and widespread disappearance and torture and murder, and evidently, development and use of banned biological weapons) and what we have is a failed state. The USA is a state that cannot be bothered to protect the peoples under its control. Instead it preys on the peoples it controls. The US government has no reason to exist.

    There’s no point voting in national elections, as elective officials are bribed and blackmailed puppets of kleptocrats with impunity, CIA and banks. We should not lift a finger for local candidates until we’re sure they understand that states or regions must assume the responsible sovereignty that the USG has pissed away. That will require accession to universal human rights instruments and self-determination through secession. If a local politician can’t quote human rights chapter and verse, fuck him, he’s not fit to run for dogcatcher.

    https://ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/UniversalHumanRightsInstruments.aspx

    Newsome has the right idea in calling California a nation-state. When your state bears the duties that the CIA kleptocracy shirks, the state is sovereign and the federal government is sloshing around in the puke vat of history with USSR and the Ottoman Empire.

    The USA is a parasite. The only way forward for the people of this land mass is to knock it over, rip it apart, and wreck its defense industrial base.

  28. lloyd says: • Website
    @jbwilson24

    The Magna Carta abolished at least theoretically compound interest lent to minors. I have sometimes wondered why no one has argued student debt violates the Magna Carta. I was struck Magna Carta refers to the Jewish lenders in an entirely neutral way. Not accursed of God or anything like that. Simply they were England’s bankers and needed to be curbed. It’s actually a wonderful humane document full of sensible reforms. England should be very proud of it despite several generations’ cultural marxist deprecating of it as only for the Barons. It also says that if the Sovereign does not oblige to it, his subjects have the right to overthrow him. But I might be a bit wrong there.

  29. a_german_ says:

    Capitalism is an economy structure, Feudalism a political one. You can`t divide them, they come always together. Even in “feudalistic” times. Or tell me the difference between squeezed out by a dynasty and a dynasty.

    Mr. Buffets class will win he says in this one-page declared war- as always. But in result he transferred his ecosphere in an monoculture filled with enemies and guerrillas. Did`nt make sense in my sense.

    Now they want to squeeze out the remains? Which remains? One man shows, soho ventures and old mans tool shop not worth a penny? Or the round the corner garage? All on a ROI of -100%?

    The debt driven acquisition has ended, cannibalize yourself guy and bon appetit.

  30. @GeeBee

    Thanks for the information.

  31. Biff says:
    @Jedi Night

    Do not! feed that troll.

  32. @c matt

    With Feudalism came Noblesse Oblige. You correctly point out there is no such thing with today’s Criminal Elite, but to be fair to the Robber Barons, they did give back to their communities in big ways … after they were dead, of course.

    sarc
    But hey, we’ve got the Gates Vaccine initiative, so maybe our Criminal elite aren’t so bad after all. /sarc

    To PCR’s point, the One Percent are giving us a real solution: Theirs, and tough toenails if it looks like a final solution for most of us.

  33. NPleeze says:
    @animalogic

    Ohhh, there you are again, sniveling in your basement, under your momma’s apron, crying about this big bad virus! Run, run, run for the hills! Errh, hide, hide, hide in the basement!

    You basement-dwelling cowards make me laugh, and sick, all at once. Tell us about the time you almost died of fear when you saw your own shadow?

    • Replies: @animalogic
  34. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Jedi Night

    This “just” in:

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt  criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”or “improved”,simply because of their innate criminal nature.”   onebornfree

    “Everything government touches turns to crap” Ringo Starr

    “Government  is a disease masquerading as its own cure”  Robert LeFevere

    “Why Government Doesn’t Work”
    https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Why_Government_Doesn%27t_Work

    Regards, onebornfree

  35. SteveK9 says:

    ‘It is time to dethrone them.’

    How? I am trying to find a ‘protest’ in NH and cannot so far.

  36. The elites are not checked in a representative democracy, where only one side of the equation gets to directly set laws.

    Buy a yellow vest, demand semi-direct democracy.

  37. @NPleeze

    Wow, full on.
    I’ll take that as a “no” on the “report back” then ?

  38. Richard B says:
    @GeeBee

    Well said. Feudalism is one of those easy targets that people unthinkingly trot out

    I’ve been reading PCR for years now and I can’t recall him ever unthinkingly trotting out anything.

    All this niggling analysis over the use of words some don’t approve is just an excuse to ignore the last sentence of the article.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS