Economics of Intangibles, Conspiracies, Corruption

In the Sunday Boston Globe in his article Paradigm Lost Drake Bennet tries to address why "Economists missed the brewing crisis." He points out: "Now many are asking: How can we do better?"

Bennet writes:

"Everyone that I know in economics, and particularly in the worlds of academic finance and academic macroeconomics, is going back to the drawing board," says David Laibson, a Harvard economist. "There are very, very, very few economists who can be proud."

A few are suggesting, as well, that there are deeper problems in the discipline. Economists are asking aloud whether the field has grown too specialized, too abstract - and too divorced, in some sense, from the way real-world economies actually function. They argue that many of the models used to explain and predict the dynamics of financial markets or national economies have been scrubbed clean, in the interest of theoretical elegance, of the inevitable erraticism of human behavior. As a result, the analytical tools of the trade offer little help in a crisis, and have little to say about the sort of collapses that led to this one.

Yet the problem is not erraticism, but the need to put ethnic consciousness, corruption, conspiracy, and manipulation at the core of economic theory rather than at the fringe as aberrational.

Bennet briefly and far too positively mentions Milton Friedman's ideas, which are for the most part a repackaging of Jabotinski's and Achimeir's form of Zionist economic theory, whose political and cultural assumptions have been carefully concealed.

Naomi Klein writes in The Shock Doctrine:

The movement that Milton Friedman launched in the 1950s is best understood as an attempt by multinational capital to recapture the highly profitable, lawless frontier that Adam Smith, the intellectual forefather of today's neoliberals, so admired – but with a twist. Rather than journeying through Smith's "savage and barbarous nations" where there was no Western law (no longer a practical option), this movement set out to systematically dismantle existing laws and regulations to re-create that earlier lawlessness. And where Smith's colonists earned their record profits by seizing what he described as "waste lands" for "but a trifle," today's multinationals see government programs, public assets and everything that is not for sale as terrain to be conquered and seized – the post office, national parks, schools, social security, disaster relief and anything else that is publicly administered. [The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,[376] pp. 241-242.]

In the above formulation, Friedman has created a movement for the negation of the exile (shəlilat hagalut) from the free market and seeks to return the free market capitalists oppressed by regulation to their "ancient homeland."

Friedmanism almost certainly grows out of the epistemic culture (mentality or mind-set) associated with the perfervid Zionism of the Jewish community in the area of Rahway, NJ, where Friedman grew up. (See Facts on the Ground,[377] pp. 101-105, for a discussion of the Zionist epistemic culture of Israeli archeologists.)

Nixon appointed Milton Friedman to the Gates Commission in March 1969, met with Friedman regularly, and appointed Friedman's friends and colleagues like George Shultz and Donald Rumsfeld to high administration positions. (The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,[395] p. 132-133.)

Friedman's Zionism-for-Capitalists economic theory dovetailed both with Kissinger's power politics and US corporate greed

• because it provided the logic to wage economic warfare against Allende and
  
• because the proposed sell-off of the state-owned corporations of developing countries to private sector US owners (in a sort of anti-Marxist withering of the state) promised a quick infusion of cash to local elites in order to inspire "free market coups" like that of Pinochet in Chile.

These new neocolonial revenue streams coming to the USA would prove to benefit business and investment sectors, whose domination by "Our Crowd" and by a developing class of wealthy Yiddish Americans or geltyidn was increasing rapidly thanks to covert ethnic networks whose members protect one another and share insider information.

In general, application of Friedman's economic theory corresponds so closely with the Polish arenda system[396] and with the history of Jewish exploitation in the Ukraine that it could be considered to be an expression of an epistemic culture associated not merely with Zionist politics but also with traditional Yiddish economics.

Because the Friedmanite profiteers are so far away from the modern equivalent of potentially enraged Cossacks or ethnically cleansed Palestinians, Friedmanism is a far superior as a form of theft or brutal exploitation than either Zionism today or the arenda system in the seventeenth century Ukraine.

The counter-Marxist Friedmanist concept of withering away the state by selling off its functions to private enterprise worked well with Nixon's southern strategy because it was a way for the Republican party to promise racially anxious whites a theoretically weaker federal government less inclined in the future to engage in civil rights activism like the 1970 decision of the IRS to remove the tax-exempt contribution status of Bob Jones University on account of the school's rules against interracial dating.

In effect, Nixon's southern strategy represented a purely Jabotinskian trade of the economic interests for a racial symbolism considered of overwhelming importance by the lower middle class. As part of the bargain Friedmanites gradually dismantled the regulatory system to facilitate ever greater levels of corruption, manipulation and exploitation of the country by the richest American class, which came to be dominated by hyperwealthy Zionist political economic oligarchs.

At this point it is simply difficulty to determine whether Friedman and his colleagues acted consciously or reflexively in the surreptitious effort to Zionize and Yiddishize the world economic and financial order, but the collective failure of academic economists to predict the world economic collapse indicates that no mathematical system can possibly work that fails to account for ethnic networking, covert conspiracy, market manipulation and multilevel corruption throughout the society.

The Abramoff or Blagojevich scandals are penny ante compared to Madoff, who is of course dwarfed by the current financial meltdown, which results almost entirely from the multi-generational Zionist corruption or subversion of the US and international political and regulatory system.

Academic economic discourse about such phenomena will remain crippled until modern economic theory takes sufficient account of group consciousness or intent as discussed by Gary Zatzman and Rafiqul Islam in The Economics of Intangibles.

Reformulating economic theory from a more "intangibly-aware" standpoint makes it possible to develop a political economic theory of corruption and to apply it both modern American society and also especially to the discipline of economics.

I make a start at such rethinking and even suggest some first steps for solving the economic crisis in Gladwell Supports Hegemonic Zionist Discourse.

Sphere: Related Content