Global Trends 2025: the nazis in the U.S. government
Mark Anderson
November 27, 2008
The National Intelligence Center released a report entitled Global Trends 2025. In it are some germs of truth amalgamated with lies and ommissions.
The report suggests that the United States government will lose its dominance and hegemony. I certainly agree. What the report doesn't explain, however, is that the demise of the United States as a superpower is due to deliberately pursued policies of the government. In fact, it has a lot to do with the very idea of "superpower."
The United States was never meant to be an empire. The word superpower is a euphemism for a powerful central government, or an empire. We, as individuals, are not super powerful. So what is meant by the word superpower? The GOVERNMENT is super powerful. When a government is super powerful, individuals become less free and lose autonomy over their lives. The pursuit of empire is exactly why the United States' economy is being weakened. Empire has bankrupted us. If we wish to have a strong economy again, we need a weak central government. BTW, there can't be a government without an economy, which central planners will eventually figure out.
The report cites global warming as a threat to natural resources. Wrong. The threat to resources is government control over resources. Government control over land and resources prevents the price mechanism from working to rationally allocate resources and manage them efficiently. Government itself is nothing but consumption, and prevents resources from being used in productive ways that ensures resources are replenished. Government spending and inflation (i.e., what the Federal Reserve is responsible for) disconnects consumption from production.
Suppose a logging company owns a forest. That logging company can clear-cut the forest, say, tripling immediate income. However, this must be weighed against diminishing future income, or the capital value of the forest as a whole. Suppose this is government property, however. This calculation no longer needs to be made, and the objective is going to be rapid extraction of resources.
No shocker, then, that government is the biggest abuser of the environment and waster of resources there is. Just look at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are wasting all sorts of resources. And look at the atomic weapons tests done in the Nevada desert.
The report was obviously written by economic illiterates, because it totally ignores the price mechanism, which is what ensures that resources are managed efficiently. The price mechanism can only function within the construct of the unhampered free market, allowing for producers to set prices pursuant to supply vs. demand (i.e., the market-clearing price). The scarcer the supply, the greater the demand, the higher the price. Consumption runs inversely with prices.
Government subsidies to, and control over, industry diminishes the need to set prices pursuant to supply vs. demand. Why? Because sustenance is no longer dependent upon having to satisfy consumer demands. Government subsidies cause prices to be set either above or below the market-clearing price. There is a paradox in government policy, in that the government encourages consumption without production, tells us that we should conserve resources, while simultaneously punishing "price gouging."
The report also scares us with population figures, and talks about food and water shortages. I agree that we may have food shortages in the future. This has nothing to do with excessive population, and EVERYTHING to do with the GOVERNMENT ITSELF. Only through government action do people believe that prosperity can be created without productivity (don't conflate activity with productivity). I'm sorry, but the government can't turn stones into bread, and it is the government which disconnects consumption from production.
Here is a good analogy of the inflationary boom, to help people understand why - if there is going to be - there could be food shortages.
Suppose you have a family that is into farming. Suppose one year the family sows and reaps an abundant harvest of crops. The harvest is so bountiful that it is enough to last the family for an entire year.
Some family members worked from dusk to dawn, others only worked some of the time, and others didn't work at all. One of the family members convinces the rest of the family members of the need for a "planner" to allocate the bounty to the family members. This "planner" then distributes "credits" to the family members, based upon favoritism and cronyism, or satisfying the "planner's" arbitrary demands.
Family members who did no work at all get plenty of food, while family members who did lots of work get either the same amount or less. The family members then forget that it is necessary to work in order replenish their food supply, believing that the food came from this "planner." As the year goes by, the family consumes their food supplies, and then runs out. 'Tis the bust. Mainstream economists confuse consumption with economic growth. We all feel prosperous when we are consuming. But prosperity without productivity can't last.
Back to the over population myth. Suppose the world can't sustain the population. People would naturally die off. There would be no need to have governments pick and choose who lives and who dies by committee. Again: the problem we face is not due to over population, but to too much government. Just look at all of the land the federal government has kept off limits in the United States.
This report is a dangerous and lunatic attempt to misdirect people into blaming themselves for problems that tyrannical governments are causing. While it contains germs of truth, real causes are ignored, and humanity itself is scapegoated as the culprit. We can take this as a direct threat against people (as the late professor Murray Rothbard would ask: what is population, other than an array of people?). This is Malthusian/Nazi thinking, which must be rejected and opposed.
There is more than enough land to sustain the population, and we could have abundance, if only the crazies who authored this report went out and got a real job producing things, rather than wasting scarce resources threatening people. But pretending the problem is over population, as these nazis in the U.S. government suggest, then maybe government officials can practice what they preach and set a good example, by committing mass suicide.
The report suggests that the United States government will lose its dominance and hegemony. I certainly agree. What the report doesn't explain, however, is that the demise of the United States as a superpower is due to deliberately pursued policies of the government. In fact, it has a lot to do with the very idea of "superpower."
The United States was never meant to be an empire. The word superpower is a euphemism for a powerful central government, or an empire. We, as individuals, are not super powerful. So what is meant by the word superpower? The GOVERNMENT is super powerful. When a government is super powerful, individuals become less free and lose autonomy over their lives. The pursuit of empire is exactly why the United States' economy is being weakened. Empire has bankrupted us. If we wish to have a strong economy again, we need a weak central government. BTW, there can't be a government without an economy, which central planners will eventually figure out.
The report cites global warming as a threat to natural resources. Wrong. The threat to resources is government control over resources. Government control over land and resources prevents the price mechanism from working to rationally allocate resources and manage them efficiently. Government itself is nothing but consumption, and prevents resources from being used in productive ways that ensures resources are replenished. Government spending and inflation (i.e., what the Federal Reserve is responsible for) disconnects consumption from production.
Suppose a logging company owns a forest. That logging company can clear-cut the forest, say, tripling immediate income. However, this must be weighed against diminishing future income, or the capital value of the forest as a whole. Suppose this is government property, however. This calculation no longer needs to be made, and the objective is going to be rapid extraction of resources.
No shocker, then, that government is the biggest abuser of the environment and waster of resources there is. Just look at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are wasting all sorts of resources. And look at the atomic weapons tests done in the Nevada desert.
The report was obviously written by economic illiterates, because it totally ignores the price mechanism, which is what ensures that resources are managed efficiently. The price mechanism can only function within the construct of the unhampered free market, allowing for producers to set prices pursuant to supply vs. demand (i.e., the market-clearing price). The scarcer the supply, the greater the demand, the higher the price. Consumption runs inversely with prices.
Government subsidies to, and control over, industry diminishes the need to set prices pursuant to supply vs. demand. Why? Because sustenance is no longer dependent upon having to satisfy consumer demands. Government subsidies cause prices to be set either above or below the market-clearing price. There is a paradox in government policy, in that the government encourages consumption without production, tells us that we should conserve resources, while simultaneously punishing "price gouging."
The report also scares us with population figures, and talks about food and water shortages. I agree that we may have food shortages in the future. This has nothing to do with excessive population, and EVERYTHING to do with the GOVERNMENT ITSELF. Only through government action do people believe that prosperity can be created without productivity (don't conflate activity with productivity). I'm sorry, but the government can't turn stones into bread, and it is the government which disconnects consumption from production.
Here is a good analogy of the inflationary boom, to help people understand why - if there is going to be - there could be food shortages.
Suppose you have a family that is into farming. Suppose one year the family sows and reaps an abundant harvest of crops. The harvest is so bountiful that it is enough to last the family for an entire year.
Some family members worked from dusk to dawn, others only worked some of the time, and others didn't work at all. One of the family members convinces the rest of the family members of the need for a "planner" to allocate the bounty to the family members. This "planner" then distributes "credits" to the family members, based upon favoritism and cronyism, or satisfying the "planner's" arbitrary demands.
Family members who did no work at all get plenty of food, while family members who did lots of work get either the same amount or less. The family members then forget that it is necessary to work in order replenish their food supply, believing that the food came from this "planner." As the year goes by, the family consumes their food supplies, and then runs out. 'Tis the bust. Mainstream economists confuse consumption with economic growth. We all feel prosperous when we are consuming. But prosperity without productivity can't last.
Back to the over population myth. Suppose the world can't sustain the population. People would naturally die off. There would be no need to have governments pick and choose who lives and who dies by committee. Again: the problem we face is not due to over population, but to too much government. Just look at all of the land the federal government has kept off limits in the United States.
This report is a dangerous and lunatic attempt to misdirect people into blaming themselves for problems that tyrannical governments are causing. While it contains germs of truth, real causes are ignored, and humanity itself is scapegoated as the culprit. We can take this as a direct threat against people (as the late professor Murray Rothbard would ask: what is population, other than an array of people?). This is Malthusian/Nazi thinking, which must be rejected and opposed.
There is more than enough land to sustain the population, and we could have abundance, if only the crazies who authored this report went out and got a real job producing things, rather than wasting scarce resources threatening people. But pretending the problem is over population, as these nazis in the U.S. government suggest, then maybe government officials can practice what they preach and set a good example, by committing mass suicide.
Print
Email
