Connect with us

Headline News

The Choice Isn’t Between Capitalism or Socialism

greenbay

Published

on

Americans are once again interested in debating economic systems. The 2016 presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, reignited a debate about capitalism and socialism that some believed had died with the Soviet Union. Younger Americans are now divided on which system they like best:

Unfortunately, the debate over what these terms actually mean has become hopelessly muddled.  Without a Soviet bloc to provide an official alternative to capitalism, people cast about for examples that fit their desired narrative. Self-appointed defenders of capitalism will point to the economic failures of the USSR, China and North Korea, or to the more recent economic disaster in Venezuela as proof positive of socialism’s defects

Socialism’s champions tend to rebut these charges by pointing to the successes of the Scandinavian countries. Sanders himself regularly praises Denmark, and occasionally Sweden, as examples of what he would like to achieve in the U.S., while others prefer Norway. But American socialists have, on occasion, received pushback from residents of those countries — in 2015, Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen stated bluntly that Denmark was a market economy rather than a socialist one.

So is Sanders right, or is Rasmussen? Are the Scandinavian countries socialist or capitalist? The truth, unfortunately, is much more nuanced and complex. There will never be a clear, simple definition of socialism or capitalism, because there are multiple ways that a government can try to intervene in markets.

Markets aren’t perfect. They generate unequal outcomes, and often unfair ones, and they are subject to numerous inefficiencies. Governments can try to remedy these problems in a number of ways. They can provide services directly, as with the U.K.’s National Health Service. They can own businesses, as China does with state-owned enterprises. They can write regulations to restrain or promote various forms of market activity. They can sanction and empower various institutions like unions that counter the power of business. And they can use taxes and spending to redistribute income and wealth.

But governments don’t have to do all of these things at once. In Scandinavia, for example, there are a lot of government-provided services, a lot of redistribution and strong unions, but a relatively light regulatory touch otherwise. In a recent report, J.P. Morgan Asset Management researcher Michael Cembalest breaks down the Nordic model using various indicators from the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. As he notes, the Nordic countries (in which he includes the Netherlands) generally have fewer capital controls and trade barriers than the U.S. They also score quite highly on indexes of property rights and business freedom:

These indicators are compiled by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that might have reason to want to give high rankings to rich countries in order to make business freedom look more attractive. But rankings from the OECD confirm the general picture of Scandinavia as a lightly regulated place. Interestingly, the indicators also show higher direct state control of industry in the U.S.:

Labor markets are a different matter, however; Scandinavian countries generally make it harder to fire workers than the U.S. does. Unions and collective bargaining are also stronger. Interestingly, though, Cembalest finds that labor in Nordic countries claims a slightly smaller share of national income than in the U.S., suggesting that the impact of pro-business policies in those countries might outweigh the impact of labor protections when measured in purely monetary terms.

The Scandinavian countries, of course, have much higher taxes and spend more on social services:

Whether these various policy differences are large enough to constitute different systems is open to debate. Some economists consider them all merely different varieties of capitalism. The picture is complicated by the fact that countries change their policies over time. For example, in the 1970s, Sweden had a very large amount of redistribution, but since the late 1990s its fiscal system has become much less progressive. American socialists like Bernie Sanders may be pining for a much more interventionist Scandinavian model like that of the mid-20th century that has since changed dramatically.

The spirited online debates about socialism and capitalism are, therefore, mostly useless. They ignore and obscure the multiple dimensions of policy, as well as changes over time, and thus make it harder rather than easier to think about concrete ways to fix the problems in the U.S. system. It would be helpful to have a new consensus terminology to describe the economic systems that various industrialized countries — the U.S., France, Japan, China, and the countries of Scandinavia — have developed over the last three decades. But one thing is for certain — the dichotomy of socialism versus capitalism, inherited from the ideological battles of the past two centuries, is badly out of date.

Continue Reading

Headline News

COVID: The squeeze play on the population

greenbay

Published

on

It’s a con as old as the hills. The ancient chieftain of a little territory looks out across his domain and says to his top aide, “You know, we have these clusters of people worshiping different gods. That’s not good for business. Our business is CONTROL, so we need UNITY. Make up the name of some god, and go out there and sell it. Take down those little shrines and tell all the people they have to believe in the new deity. Use force and censorship when necessary. Later on, I may decide I’M really the name you chose for the new god. We’ll see. If you have any trouble right away, call me on my cell. I’ll be out sunning by the pool.”

Unity of thought. That’s what controllers are after.

In the case of this fake epidemic, the population must view WHAT IT IS in the way public officials and the press are describing it. Dissenting analysis must be pushed into the background.

Here is a 4/9 Bloomberg News headline: “5G Conspiracy Theory Fueled by Coordinated Effort.” [1] A sub-headline states, “Researchers identify disinformation campaign but not source.” The article begins: “A conspiracy theory linking 5G technology to the outbreak of the coronavirus is quickly gaining momentum…”

Obviously, such wayward thinking has to be stopped. And down further in the Bloomberg article, we have chilling news: “Some social media companies have taken action to limit the spread of coronavirus conspiracy theories on their platforms. On Tuesday, Google’s YouTube said that it would ban all videos linking 5G technology to coronavirus, saying that ‘any content that disputes the existence or transmission of Covid-19’ would now be in violation of YouTube policies.”

“In the U.K., a parliamentary committee on Monday called on the British government to do more to ‘stamp out’ coronavirus conspiracy theories, and said it was planning to hold a hearing later this year at which representatives from U.S. technology giants will be asked about how they have handled the spread of disinformation on their platforms.”

Independent analysis of the “epidemic” hangs in the balance. The masters of control want to maintain an information monopoly.

It goes without saying that, in order to achieve this monopoly, detailed surveillance of Internet content is necessary.

Another type of surveillance is also part of the squeeze play. Apple.com has the story (press release, 4/10) [2]:

“Across the world, governments and health authorities are working together to find solutions to the COVID-19 pandemic, to protect people… Since COVID-19 can be transmitted through close proximity to affected individuals, public health officials have identified contact tracing as a valuable tool to help contain its spread. A number of leading public health authorities, universities, and NGOs around the world have been doing important work to develop opt-in contact tracing technology.”

“To further this cause, Apple and Google will be launching a comprehensive solution that includes application programming interfaces (APIs) and operating system-level technology to assist in enabling contact tracing. Given the urgent need, the plan is to implement this solution in two steps while maintaining strong protections around user privacy.”

Read more…

Continue Reading

Headline News

Passport to the Brave New World: the vaccine

greenbay

Published

on

I have already written about the currency reset and other features of a technocratic future waiting in the wings. —New levels of visible surveillance, social credit scores, universal guaranteed income, Internet of Things, energy-use quotas, smart cities.

—Events can move in several directions, going forward. In this article, I explore one of those directions.

The occasion is this fake pandemic; the big hammer is the vaccine against the phony COVID.

As Fauci mentioned a couple of months ago, it could be a DNA vaccine—new technology—which means it is really gene therapy. Synthesized genes are injected into the body. They purportedly set up immunity. Actually, they PERMANENTLY alter the genetic makeup of the recipient.

As you can imagine, this creates the opportunity to put many different genes into humans. To try to invent “new humans.”

The so-called immunity certificates Fauci is now talking about? They would be issued to people who test positive on the new antibody tests for COVID-19—which is an interesting turnaround, because, since 1984, positive tests results have generally been taken to mean “infected.” Why the shift?

Because there is a need for these immunity certificates—as an INTRO to condition the population to an IDEA.

If and when the COVID vaccine arrives, the certificates would be used to signify immunity for all those who take the shot.

It would function as a license. Your passport into the Brave New World. You’re “immune,” so you’re allowed to move out of fear mode. And circulate and travel and enter schools…

For DNA vaccines, the reference is the New York Times, 3/15/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was five years ago.]

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read more…

Continue Reading

Headline News

A Vital Paper: David Crowe challenges the discovery of the COVID-19 virus Apr 24

greenbay

Published

on

Canadian author and independent researcher, David Crowe, has spent several decades analyzing and torpedoing SPECIFICS of conventional medical research. At the deepest level.

I’m talking about, for example, the mainstream claims of discovering new viruses.

Crowe doesn’t lay on vague brushstrokes. He goes to the core of fabrications and exposes them, chapter and verse.

His new paper, which he continues to update and expand, is: “Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory”.

Here I quote from the section of his paper where he takes up the question of discovery—have researchers actually found a new virus which they assert is the cause of a new pandemic, COVID-19?

At the end of this article, I list the published papers Crowe refers to by number, as he takes apart the very basis of the COVID illusion.

David Crowe: “Scientists are detecting novel RNA in multiple patients with pneumonia-like conditions, and are assuming that the detection of RNA (which is believed to be wrapped in proteins to form an RNA virus, as coronaviruses are believed to be) is equivalent to isolation of the virus. It is not, and one of the groups of scientists was honest enough to admit this”:

“’we did not perform tests for detecting infectious virus in blood’” [2]

“But, despite this admission, earlier in the paper they repeatedly referred to the 41 cases (out of 59 similar cases) that tested positive for this RNA as, ‘41 patients…confirmed to be infected with 2019-nCoV’.”

“Another paper quietly admitted that”:

“’our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates’” [1]

“Koch’s postulates, first stated by the great German bacteriologist Robert Koch in the late 1800s, can simply be stated as”:

“* Purify the pathogen (e.g. virus) from many cases with a particular illness.
* Expose susceptible animals (obviously not humans) to the pathogen.
* Verify that the same illness is produced.
* Some add that you should also re-purify the pathogen, just to be sure that it really is creating the illness.”

“Famous virologist Thomas Rivers stated in a 1936 speech, ‘It is obvious that Koch’s postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases’. That was a long time ago, but the same problem still continues. None of the papers referenced in this article have even attempted to purify the virus. And the word ‘isolation’ has been so debased by virologists it means nothing (e.g. adding impure materials to a cell culture and seeing cell death is ‘isolation’).”

“Reference [1] did publish electron [microscope] micrographs, but it can clearly be seen in the lesser magnified photo, that the particles believed to be coronavirus are not purified as the quantity of material that is cellular is much greater. The paper notes that the photos are from ‘human airway epithelial cells’. Also consider that the photo included in the article will certainly be the ‘best’ photo, i.e. the one with the greatest number of particles. Lab technicians may be encouraged to spend hours to look around to find the most photogenic image, the one that most looks like pure virus.”

Read more…

Continue Reading

Trending