Saturday, August 27, 2016

Katehon — Nicholas Nicholaides: President Putin must take control of the Bank of Russia

The bank’s separation from the state was achieved during the catastrophic Yeltsin years, when liberal traitors sold out the whole country. This was done for the benefit of the USA and foreign banks, not for the benefit of Russia. It was done to keep Russia down as a Third World country, as a mere exporter of natural resources without its own industrial production.

President Putin must immediately take back control over the Bank of Russia and monetary policy. This can be done by collecting a 2/3 majority in the Duma and passing an emergency law that re-subjugates the Bank of Russia to government. Then, the Bank of Russia would cease to work for foreign bankers and governments and start working for Russia. I am sure that the opposition parties would support such a step, as would even the oligarchs and businessmen (if they are not bought by USA) insofar as such would benefit business and investments.…
Now, of course, business is business, but business cannot be done properly with people who want to kill you, destroy your people, and only try to fool you. I hope president Putin understands this. The Western countries with whom Russia has done "business", particularly the USA, are not our "friends" or "partners". Such "friends" or “partners” can only be enemies. They see the world in the following way: first comes the US, then England (and other English-speaking countries), then Germany, France, the rest of Southern Europe, and then the Baltics, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans. Then they place Russia at the very bottom, together with Africa, South America, and Third World countries. This is the place that liberal traitors want for Russia. They must be neutralized. I also hope the President Putin has realized that any concessions to the West only bring Russia more trouble, not benefits.…
Yep. Central bank independence is a core principle of neoliberalism that is at odds with both economic liberalism (laissez-faire) and democracy. It is also at odds with a managed economy, where the purpose of management is public purpose. Central bank independence with respect to monetary policy is a command system that acts chiefly in support of finance capital.

Nicholas Nicholaides: President Putin must take control of the Bank of Russia


Roger Erickson said...

dang; makes a lot of sense;
wouldn't be any different than the PBOC?

Tom Hickey said...

The PBOC is not politically independent, which drives Western neoliberals crazy, of course.

Russia should follow China in this.

Unknown said...

Could you explain the difference between laissez faire and neoliberalism?

Tom Hickey said...

Could you explain the difference between laissez faire and neoliberalism?

There are various forms of economic liberalism.

1. Laissez-faire aka market fundamentalism - No government intrusion in markets. Institutional arrangements make government a market participant no different from other market participants. Because efficiency. The assumption is that markets know best and intruding on the free market process reduces efficiency and therefore is wasteful and reduces growth. The only role of government is as night watchman to prevent illegal behavior. This is characteristic of early stage capitalism.

2. Neoliberalism. No government intrusion in markets. Institutional arrangements make government servant of the ownership class, bestowing advantage on them in order to maximize growth (per capita GDP). Because efficiency and effectiveness. Free markets are free of rent and rent is a requirement for sustained profits. This is characteristic of late stage capitalism and large firms that dominate markets. It is a form of managed capitalism.

In the case of both #'s 1 and 2, markets determine distribution of income, wealth, power and status.

3. Social Democracy. Government manages the market so as to reduce the distributional effects of capitalism and moderate the cyclical swings that are endemic to capitalism.

3a. Government chiefly uses redistribution..

3b. Government chiefly uses predistribution.

#3 a and b are instances of managed capitalism.

In the case of 3a and b, government determines distribution of income, wealth, power, and status along with markets.

Socialism stands opposed to economic liberalism, Under socialism. Institutions determine markets so as to eliminate the adverse effects of capitalism. Under socialism capital is subordinate to the other two traditional factors, land (environment) and labor (workers). Workers comprise the people since there are no rentiers.

1. Totalitarian Socialism. Government controls the economy and society.

2. Democratic Socialism. Government controls the economy but not society.

Anonymous said...

laissez faire and neoliberalism = every man for himself, and Strong Man rulership

social democracy = only current attempt to regain the attributes of tribal culture

This fumbling, trial & error has been going on since humans filled up the planet, and achieved supra-tribal population levels.

After forty thousand years of evolving human culture produced exquisitely worked out "tribal" mechanisms, the collision between tribes wiped out the ability to extend those methods across supra-tribal populations. Even 5000 years on, we simply lack the social-instrumentation to make large-group organization as powerful as small-group organization.

A very lean and highly selective set of mobile phone apps might allow us to regain much of our lost cultural-agility, but only time will tell.

If you think of human culture as somewhat analogous to the culture of cells that make a human body, it's then easy to see what happens when an adolescent population goes through a growth spurt.

Same thing that happens when an adolescent individual goes through a growth spurt.

All aggregates that grow faster than their self-control instrumentation adapt, HAVE to get clumsier before their evolving " nervous system" can be rewired, and allow them to regain the lost agility, in different ways.

Exploding human populations present organizational challenges that have far more degrees of freedom than even the challenge of organizing all the 40 Trillion cells in the human body.

There's no telling how we'll solve this, over the next 200 to 1000 years.

Anonymous said...

ps: quite obviously, "Every Cell For Itself" is not how human physiology works, now was it how tribal cultures worked

There are countless interdependencies to manage, for both Risk Mgt, and for pursuing the insane return on coordination.

both lassez faire & NeoLiberalism are far too simplistic to even be taken seriously (at least by informed, experienced humans)

There are obvious reasons why social species evolved, and why human culture will evolve past the Luddites fixated on lassez faire and NeoLiberalism

Living organisms appear in the fossil record as far back as 4 billion years ago, soon after formation of the Earth itself;

social species appear in the fossil record only ~400 million years ago

It took a LONG time to figure out ways to organize on a larger scale. No one said it's easy. Yet it's also appears to be an unstoppable force.

We'll get beyond lassez faire & NeoLiberalism someday. Why is obvious. The more relevant question is WHEN did the moron quit banging his head against the wall?

Anonymous said...

surely we could (and should) teach these simple concepts & observations in elementary school?

Sure seems like a colossal mistake to NOT do that. Data minus perspective or context produces a mob of random goals .... often making us less, rather than more, than the sum of our parts