Quotation of the Day…

by Don Boudreaux on December 16, 2011

in Civil Society

… is one attributed to Beethoven:

Recommend virtue to your children; it alone, not money, can make them happy.  I speak from experience.

Be Sociable, Share!



61 comments    Share Share    Print    Email


W.E. Heasley December 16, 2011 at 7:52 am

Most excellent quote as well as advice.

Something a bit more contemporary:

“And do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga…gunga — gunga galunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he’s gonna stiff me. And I say, “Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know.” And he says, “Oh, uh, there won’t be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.” So I got that goin’ for me, which is nice“ – Carl Spackler [Bill Murray] from the movie Caddyshack

Invisible Backhand December 16, 2011 at 11:12 am

HAYEK: Oh, I can see [why], in general. I mean, it was conspicuous that the Americans did no longer walk. My wife used to say that they would soon lose the capacity to walk. I think some doctor discovered this, but why things spread like this, again, is a typical American thing. It’s not only difficult to generalize about the Americans in space, but it’s equally difficult to generalize about them in time. Every time we have come to the States, it has changed.

CHITESTER: Is that unique in the world?

HAYEK: I think it’s unique among grown-up people. It’s very common with the young. When I lecture to the revolutionary young people, I say the reason I have no respect for your opinions is because every two years you have different opinions. And I think that is true to some extent of the Americans. This is, in a sense, a virtue. You change your opinions very rapidly; so if you adopt something very absurd one time, there’s a good chance you will have forgotten about it next year.

D Howard Johnson December 16, 2011 at 7:55 am

To recommend virtue, the parents should model the desired behavior. There is no success in the rest of your life that can compensate for failure in the home.

vidyohs December 16, 2011 at 8:00 am

Only by destroying the character of a people can you ensure that the people will be destroyed.

A person of good character can overcome any obstacle placed in his path as long as he holds to his principles.

Josh S December 16, 2011 at 10:21 am

And by using the power of the state to reward vice and punish virtue, that can be accomplished in a generation.

See the black community in America for details.

Bastiat Smith December 16, 2011 at 1:59 pm

There is no black community. There is a higher proportion blacks that are ill-employed through perverse incentives which, I think, is what you actually mean.

Josh S December 16, 2011 at 8:42 pm

No, what I mean is in poor, black communities, single motherhood, sexual promiscuity, crime, gang membership, etc aren’t just bad things that happen; they’re celebrated. This wasn’t true before progressives (especially LBJ) embarked on their “urban renewal” programs, which destroyed neighborhoods, and the “war on poverty,” which offered financial rewards for behaviors normally called “vice.”

It’s pretty amazing how the black family persisted through generations of Jim Crow, but couldn’t even last twenty years of progressive central planning.

vidyohs December 16, 2011 at 7:11 pm

Hi Josh,
This harks back to an exchange in the recent past. You said of me that I knee jerked into calling people lefties because of something we said to one another.

That is not correct. I only label a person a looney lefty if he has specifically or disingenuously expressed the looney left mantra, or if one has come at me on a comment from a seeming left slant.

If I did insult you with that label, perhaps I somehow misread your words or their intent. If so, please forgive me, I realize what a stigma it can be to have it even hinted that you would be on the left.

DarrenM December 16, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Fred December 16, 2011 at 8:09 am

“REWARD OF VIRTUE” by L. Sprague de Camp

Sir Gilbert de Vere was a virtuous knight;
He succored the weak and he fought for the right
But cherished a goal that he never could sight:
He wanted a dragon to fight.

He prayed all the night and he prayed all the day
That God would provide him a dragon to slay;
And God heard his prayer and considered a way
To furnish Sir Gilbert his prey.

And so, to comply with Sir Gilbert’s demand
But having no genuine dragons to hand,
God whisked him away to an earlier land,
With destrier, armor, and brand.

And in the Cretaceous, Sir Gilbert de Vere
Discovered a fifty-foot carnosaur near.
He dug in his spurs and he leveled his spear
And charged without flicker of fear.

The point struck a rib, and the lance broke in twain;
The knight clapped a hand to his hilt, but in vain:
The dinosaur swallowed that valorous thane,
And gallant Sir Gilbert was slain.

The iron apparel he wore for his ride,
However, was rough on the reptile’s inside.
That dinosaur presently lay down and died,
And honor was thus satisfied.

But Gilbert no longer was present to care;
So pester not God with your wishes. Beware!
What happens when Heaven has answered your prayer
Is your, and no other’s, affair!

Tim Worstall December 16, 2011 at 8:18 am

Nice quote but I fear the attribution is wrong.

Beethoven (at least Ludwig the composer Beethoven) didn’t have any children.

A newphew and great newphews yes, but no children.

Tor Munkov December 16, 2011 at 8:36 am

You might be right, but your reasoning is poor. Must a constructor of aphorisms belong to the subset of his subject?

Here are some official sourced quotes…
I want to seize fate by the throat.
There ought to be but one large art warehouse in the world, to which the artist could carry his art-works, and from which he could carry away whatever he needed. As it is, one must be half a tradesman.
Art! Who comprehends her? With whom can one consult concerning this great goddess?
The world is a king, and like a king, desires flattery in return for favor; but true art is selfish and perverse — it will not submit to the mold of flattery.
Plaudite, amici, comedia finita est. (Applaud, my friends, the comedy is over.)
Ich werde im Himmel hören! (I will hear in heaven!)
Muß es sein? Es muß sein. (Must it be? It must be)
Music is like a dream. One that I cannot hear.

For me the mathematical beauty of the symphonies of Beethoven or Cobain are themselves ineffable virtuous beauties that endure far beyond their brief mortal coils.

JS December 16, 2011 at 10:41 am

Is to be an artist something that one decides for himself, or are the opinions of other people required? The artist is no different than any peddler. They exchange things for either a money equivalent or recognition. Likewise, the buyers of art most often buy for reasons of recognition. If the artist appeals to a discriminating group of people that one inspires to be accepted by, then they would purchase the art that secures their acceptance. The artist is used by people trying to distinguish themselves, or better said, by people trying to act superor or more sophisticated than others, as a way of identification.

The artist craves not just fame, but the right kind of fame. Often the repudiation of riches does the trick for them. This highest form of greed can’t soley be obtained by money. The artist knows this and is prepared to make sacrifices for it.

Artistic talent is a gift. An artistic genius seeks to expand the adulation received to include their opinions, as if some sort of linkage must exist.

The only artist I would respect is a silent one.

JS December 16, 2011 at 10:57 am

What makes the melodies of a symphony ‘virtuous’? I can argue that all vice is virtuous and all virtue vicious, but the point about ‘ineffable beauty’ is perfect. I remember reading where Rachmaninoff said of the Grieg piano concerto that the hand of God must have guided him. Yet I felt the same way listening to some of Rachmaninoff. How could a human conceive this, I thought. You can listen, or really meditate to it, and even if you never heard it before, you know in advance what each note should be, because there is only one perfect note that must necessarily follow.

It’s so easy to fall for the genius, such as did Nietzsche for Wagner, but when the artist self-promotes the realm of his genius to wordly affairs, and intertwines his opinions with his melodies, he destroys the mystery of himself and his art.

I think art should not require a political explanation. If it does, it’s propaganda, not art.

Tor Munkov December 16, 2011 at 3:21 pm

Yes I agree. Assuming firstly one creates the art, and then secondly attaches a propaganda label or dialog, it’s status as art is partially or wholly subsumed into a art-derivative package deal one could call art-prop.
Imagine a charming “funny video” with a misanthropist title “Dumb Redneck” added to it or a pleasant mpeg nude study of Kim Kardashian inexplicably labelled “fame chaser.”

JS December 17, 2011 at 3:31 pm

Yes, human nature can be artistically portayed. I didn’t measn to imply that art should be disqualified if it promotes an ideology. It’s most often sold because it does.

To me though, I have yet to be impressed with any ideological art, which are only possible in books, movies and poetry. Visual art and music can never accurately convey ideology. For example, I love Gilbert &Sullivan, as political as they are, because they focus on human nature without interjecting ideology, or taking sides.

It’s because I see ideology as justification, or to be offered up as an excuse, for one’s seeking empowerment over others. The only honest ideology is the one no one will admit to possessing: totalitarianism.

vidyohs December 16, 2011 at 8:57 am

Excuse me sir, but you’re mistaken. There is nothing in that quote that indicates a claim that Beethoven had children, nor is it necessary for Beethoven to have children to validly offer that advice.

Sam Grove December 16, 2011 at 12:45 pm

Beethoven was speaking of himself.

Paul December 16, 2011 at 9:26 am

Last night I was telling my dad about the China Trade Deficit econtalk podcast and he claimed:

China is hoarding USD.
Which undervalues the Yuan/overvalues the USD on currency markets.
This leads to americans buying chinese products instead of us products.
Which leads to lose of US jobs to China.
Which pushes up the unemployment rate in the US.

It sounds logical. Is this right? If not where is the error?
I understand that the US gets cheaper products from China.
But does that counter the costs of people sitting around unemployed?
Is China hoarding Yuan and so causing increasing unemployment in the US?

Randy December 16, 2011 at 9:57 am


For it to be right, one would have to imagine that unemployed US workers haven’t the ability to make better use of their time than to be tied to a factory bench making buttons and trinkets for 50 hours a week for the rest of their lives. While I am convinced that a large part of the political class has precisely such a limited imagination, I expect a more productive thought process from the productive class.

As for what the politicians in China do with the Yuan, that is irrelevant.

Fred December 16, 2011 at 10:13 am

With all the barriers to market entry set up by the political class, it is indeed difficult for unemployed workers to try something new on their own.

But that’s not China’s fault.

Randy December 16, 2011 at 11:03 am

It can be difficult. The way I see it is this; hunters and gatherers spent a great amount of time and effort learning to be successful hunters and gatherers. Working 40 acres with a mule was a dawn to dusk job and very hard. So if it takes modern workers considerable time and effort to learn the skills they need to be useful, or to spend considerable time and effort to learn the skills necessary to stay current, then that’s just the way it is.

Fred December 16, 2011 at 11:10 am

Try turning a hobby into a business.
With all the regulations, licenses, permits and everything else that is required by the government to enter the market, it is much more easily said than done.
Most people just give up.

Randy December 16, 2011 at 11:39 am

I agree that the barriers should be removed – nearly all of them. But politicians too are a fact of life with which working people must contend. Again, that’s just the way it is.

surfisto December 16, 2011 at 12:06 pm

If you buy something cheaper is that a good thing? It allows you to buy something else too. It increases your wealth.
When you buy the cheaper tire from China and 1mn other people do too, it is likely that the US tire maker with go out of business and those employees will lose their jobs.
However, you saved 10 dollars so did 1mn people and they buy 10mn dollars worth of other goods, which will increase the demand for those goods and create jobs. Its easy to see the lost jobs and you hear about it. Its harder to see the gained jobs and wealth, but it is there.

vikingvista December 17, 2011 at 2:16 pm

Nicely stated.

Paul December 19, 2011 at 7:09 am

But doesn’t the “fact” (I think it’s true) that US unemployment is high at the moment mean exactly that – that US workers are finding it tough getting a new job if they lose one?

JS December 16, 2011 at 10:18 am

Let’s examine the logical result of yur father’s opinion. If we can buy Chinese goods cheaper than we can make them, he claims that we will become unemployed to the degree that we import them. So, if China decided that they wanted to maximize their employment through whatever means possible and decided to offer us everything that they made for free, according to the logic of your father, we would suffer drastic unemployment as a result, and to save ourselves from a great depression, we should immediately impose sanctions on those free goods being given to us.

You and your father, and most people, to be fair, are clueless as to how wealth is created and how the division of labor functions as people leave one type of employment for another.

It’s not to late for you to learn econmics, but you won’t from politicians and talk shows, or from many of the ignorant posters here who’d rather spew their political emotions as economics.

Our unemployement as nothing to do with China. half the products that are available for consumption simply wouldn’t exist if we had to expend all our labor on making sundry items. There would have been no tech revolution. Like Cuba was frozen in time, 1959, we would be frozen in the 1970′s, perhaps all employed, with one tv and car per household, and our virtue in lockstep with our envy.

Paul December 19, 2011 at 7:05 am

Thank you everyone for your replies. It’s hard for me to find people interested enough in economics to talk these things through with. So having your feed back was fantastic.

Josh S December 16, 2011 at 10:23 am

No. If that were true, buying grain grown in Kansas, cars made in Texas, and oil drilled in North Dakota would mean Kentuckians would have no jobs.

surfisto December 16, 2011 at 11:10 am

China buying treasuries is hoarding USD? Or are they separetly buying dollars?

Jon Murphy December 16, 2011 at 11:14 am

They do both. They buy treasuries as an investment (it’s a safe bet) and they buy USD in order to maintain their currency value which is pegged to the dollar.

Remember that treasury bonds have no direct effect on the currency exchange market. China is not buying Treasuries to maintain their currency value (such a move would be foolishly expensive). It’s a move to boost their investment portfolio and to keep the US Gov’t solvent.

surfisto December 16, 2011 at 11:22 am

Sorry just want to clarify, I listened to the same podcast and understand that China pegs the Yuan to the dollar. The mechanism for doing that is to not trade the yuan on the Forex and to also buy dollars? How do they buy dollars if they are not trading on Forex, or are they trading on Forex?

Jon Murphy December 16, 2011 at 11:29 am

I don’t know if China trades on FOREX (although I seriously doubt it), but they can buy dollars simply by purchasing them from the Federal Reserve. Just as you would go into any bank here and swap USD for, say, Euro, that Chinese can swap Yuan for dollars.

vidyohs December 16, 2011 at 7:16 pm

Can I axe as question? If a treasury is cashed in, what does the one doing the cashing in receive for the treasury?

I believe that would be USD (U.S. Dollars, yes?). In that case what is the difference in hoarding USD (actually FRNs) or holding treasury notes, other than the treasury notes do gain one interest; which are paid in USD (FRNs).

USD/FRNs are backed by nothing but the good faith and credit of the USA, so what can a person do with tons of USD/FRNs?

Jon Murphy December 17, 2011 at 7:09 am

Buy US goods. And that’s about it

vidyohs December 17, 2011 at 9:04 am

One other thing.

Buy goods from businessmen in other countries, businessmen who still believe the USD/FRN has value. Businessmen who will then buy in such a manner that the USD/FRN will make its way back to the USA.

Invisible Backhand December 16, 2011 at 12:03 pm

While I’m not familiar with how to tie the rops of “bondage” (get it?). I can certainly see them using it as a lever of influence. Like the old saying goes:

If you can’t pay the bank a hundred dollars you have a problem.

If you can’t pay the bank a million dollars the bank has a problem.

surfisto December 16, 2011 at 12:11 pm

I don´t get it.
But if they did use it as a lever of influence, who cares. Wouldn´t the affect be reversed if they said we are not going to pay the Fed the dollars? So how is it a lever of influenece?

Josh S December 16, 2011 at 11:28 pm

If you owe the bank a million dollars, not paying it back means the bank is under-capitalized and won’t be able to pay its own debts. You know, like how Mexico’s peso crisis threatened Goldman Sachs until the Clinton government heroically swooped in and rescued everyone.

GAAPrulesIFRSdrools December 16, 2011 at 1:00 pm

If you can’t pay the bank a hundred dollars you have a problem.

If you can’t pay the bank a million dollars the bank has a problem.

If you can’t find a $100, you’re forgetful. If you can’t find hundreds of millions, you are Jon Corzine/

vikingvista December 17, 2011 at 2:13 pm

The effect of removing USD from circulation would be to lower the USD:x ratio, where x is anything traded for USD. That means nominally lower US prices, lower USD:RMB exchange rate, lower US income. So the effects would be a wash. Likewise, increasing the amount of circulating RMB would nominally increase Chinese prices, exchange rate, income. Again, a wash.

The real effects are in the transition from the first newly minted or withheld money starting at its source, and spreading outward from it through trade until the price changes have affected everything.

Jon Murphy December 16, 2011 at 11:16 am

Good ole’ Beethoven. A genius.

surfisto December 16, 2011 at 11:37 am

From Above (There is no reply button)
So the Fed would have to sit on the Yuan for this to take effect, correct? If they then sold them for Euros or other currencies that would negate the affect?

Jon Murphy December 16, 2011 at 11:48 am

Yes, but why would you? For the US (which conducts transactions in the dollar) to send Yuan to Europe (which trades in the Euro) in exchange for Euro makes no sense. Neither party benefits from that (unless Europe needs Yuan, in which case it would have to send dollars).

The idea of hoarding is weird. When Chinese goods are bought, they are bought with yuan from the FRB. In other words, the FRB sells the yuan it has to businesses to conduct their transactions. Otherwise, the yuan is worthless. Same thing in China. If the Chinese were just hoarding dollars, they’d be getting nothing for it. They turn around and sell/use those dollars elsewhere. Of course, the central banks do hold foreign reserve currency in the event of an emergency (quick liquidation; if the FRB needs a quick buck, it can sell it’s yuan holdings back to China for dollars).

What the Chinese are doing is buying (or selling) dollars from the FRB in order to maintain the exchange rate of the yuan to the dollar. They do this by buying more dollars than they need and use the excess dollars in transactions (or to buy Treasuries). This helps maintain the exchange rate. It is extremely costly, however. That’s why many countries have abandoned currency pegs.

surfisto December 16, 2011 at 11:58 am

In the podcast Don mentions that they might be doing this for stability in respects to inflation for investment confidence. Basically saying, “look world” (including chinese investors investing in china) you can trust our currency will have no more volatility than the USD. That to me makes sense and maybe is worth the costs for now.
On the other side, I believe it was mentioned in a podcast or here on CafeHayek that if it were true the Chinese were trying to devalue the Yuan to sell more goods, why not peg the Yuan to zero. (As an extreme example, I may forget if zero was the lower number) Could it be possible they don´t do that because it simply is too costly?

Jon Murphy December 16, 2011 at 12:12 pm

I’d be willing to be that’s exactly the reason, Surfisto. Currency pegs are bullshittingly expensive. Some estimate it could cost China a billion dollars a day to maintain their peg (that number seems rather high. I suspect it’s a couple million).

Ubiquitous December 16, 2011 at 5:17 pm

. . . is one attributed to Beethoven . . .

And quite appropriate for December 16th, Beethoven’s (traditionally celebrated) birthday.

16 December 1770 — 26 March 1827

muirgeo December 16, 2011 at 9:52 pm

In an unregulated free market economy the virtuous do not rise to the top. The pathological will usually find a way to “out money” the truly productive. The amount of corruption at the top today is depressing. The virtuous need to agree on a set of rules that provides them an upper hand over the not-so-virtuous.

Mesa Econoguy December 17, 2011 at 12:02 am

Just for fun:

“The pathological will usually find a way to “out money” the truly productive. “

On what evidence do you base this statement? Where are your average productivity numbers from BLS, showing the “pathological – truly productive” gap?

In an unregulated free market economy the virtuous do not rise to the top.

Ok, again, where is your evidence that our economy is unregulated? Because Kruggy says so? Do you think an insulated fool has good “street knowledge”?

What is the basis of this claim?

Mesa Econoguy December 17, 2011 at 12:30 am

Apparently, I’ve confused you.

Let’s rephrase:

“In an unregulated free market economy the virtuous do not rise to the top.”

My equivalent statement is Josh Groban causes melanoma.

In a highly regulated economy, economic performance is dampened by government interference


ThomasL December 17, 2011 at 1:33 am

“In an unregulated free market economy the virtuous do not rise to the top… The virtuous need to agree on a set of rules that provides them an upper hand over the not-so-virtuous.”

Why do you take being happy as being on top or having the upper hand?

muirgeo December 17, 2011 at 3:16 am

I don’t… but those sociopaths on top DO effect regular peoples lives and their abilities to be happy by controling so much money as they do. All that money being made on wall Street is NOT all improving other peoples lives…often its stealing from productive people. I don’t envy bank robers because they are rich I hate them because they steal from good people.

Mesa Econoguy December 17, 2011 at 1:58 am

George, who do you think better understands the “nuts and bolts” of financial market regulation, Kruggy or me?

I’m dead serious, Georgie. Who do you think?

I’ve worked in markets for the past 25 years, and my father did before me, and my great grandfather (who ran an entire exchange) before him.

Think carefully here, because I currently hold 5 securities licenses, and am forced to sit thru continuing ed for them every couple of years. I also have a masters degree from some school where Mr. Roberts taught, but that’s trivial here and masters degrees have nothing to do with regulatory licensing.

Kruggy has a Heisman, or something.

Now, who do you think has better market knowledge of the past, present and future – me, or some fool who teaches at the same schools I attended, who has never held a job in the private sector, other than Enron advisor?

muirgeo December 17, 2011 at 3:01 am

“Working in finance has brought out two emotions in me. Fascination with how it all works, then revulsion when you find out. I find it hard to see where the added value is of much of what I do. Before I worked in finance I thought it was simple: ordinary people deposit money which banks lend. But there’s this whole universe that has grown up around this. Betting that the price of cocoa will go down. Insurance against a French bank falling over. Insurance against that bank not falling over… To me it seems that there’s the same pot of money there was 10, 15 years ago. Except the financial system has found all these clever ways to make ever more money off that same pot. The crisis has not changed that.”



muirgeo December 17, 2011 at 2:48 am


Obviously you do. But who knows best how to rob a bank you or a ban robber…wait that’s not a good example….just kidding. But a better example is that while I may be good at pediatrics are CEO is better at health insurance. IN that way Krugman does know stuff you don’t.

Seriously, you seem to deny any problems with your industry. I know of plenty of people who work in the industry just as you do from Warren Buffett to John Bogle and they know darn well there are lots of problems and lots of opportunism going on there that doesn’t help our economy one bit.

Your flat refusal to admit any problems with high speed trading, speculation, and complex financial products tells me you are less then honest on the issue. I’ve never heard you accept that there are any problems except in your industry except for regulation and I’ve never heard you make any reasonable suggestions of what needs to be fixed to get finance and banking working for the rest of the economy.

I would sure be interested in hearing from you a serious suggestion on how to improve our finance sector.

Mesa Econoguy December 17, 2011 at 3:52 am

Thank you Georgie, that’s the first semi-intelligent response you’ve had, let’s ignore the Guardian disgruntled ex-City banker tripe quote above, k?

Where have I said I have no problem with HFT? Where have I said I don’t like it?

You assume many things, not knowing what they are, why they may be good or bad, and why the person you are reading is telling you why they are good/bad.

This is a dangerous trait George, one which leads to false conclusions about, oh, say, patient diagnoses, and life.

Luckily, your captive audience cannot talk, otherwise you would be sued silly.

Anyway, I dislike much of my industry, for the very reasons you cite, except that you misidentify the problem:

You think it is the responsibility of others to run your “money”; this is incorrect. It is your responsibility to not only understand the risks you are taking on behalf of your financial self, but also to understand the risks you impose on others, through your idiotic “positive rights” pseudo-obligations.

Government creates most of those. Government also creates all of the bullshit disclaimers and buffers which prevent people like me from telling people like you what is actually going on.

And from what we’ve seen/read of you on this blog, you understand virtually nothing.

So it is very fitting that you should have lost a shitload because you believed some huckster, hook, line, etc.


My first suggestion to improve financial services is to have you lose all of your money, what’s left of it anyway.

Past performance is no guarantee of future return, and you deserve every lost penny.

muirgeo December 17, 2011 at 9:49 am

Well Mesa as John Bogle says the corporate world has changed from an ownership regime to a managerial regime and all the goals tend to be short sighted and often the best route to quick money for managers is not the same as the best route for companies and society and shareholders. The asymmetries of pricing and knowledge that are intentionally set up in the finance industry goes against any market oriented approach. Most of us don’t give a shit about money and finance… we’d rather do our own productive thing and we’d just prefer money and finance and banking be kept very simple. If for instane you could give me a good reason why we should not seperate commencial banks and investment banks ( globally) I’d be interested in hearing it rather then being shouted down.

I just don’t believe the corporate culture or the finance sector is capable of self policing itself. And the fact that banking and finance is heavily subsidized gives us the right to put some restrictions on how things our done. Bankng is IMO set up by the government for the sole reason of benifiting all of society and industry and some how it now is the most prosperous industry of all.

And let me just quote again from Rush;

“Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done.”

That might have be Keynes. It was either him or Rush.

Mesa Econoguy December 17, 2011 at 11:01 am

Let us read from The Krugman:

Big money goes around the world
Big money underground
Big money got a mighty voice
Big money make no sound
Big money pull a million strings
Big money hold the prize
Big money weave a mighty web
Big money draw the flies

Sometimes pushing people around
Sometimes pulling out the rug
Sometimes pushing all the buttons
Sometimes pulling out the plug
It’s the power and the glory
It’s a war in paradise
It’s a Cinderella story
On a tumble of the dice

Oh, wait, that may have been Rush.

Everything has tradeoffs Georgie; that’s what economics is about, and exactly what you will never understand.

And the tradeoff where government “chooses” on behalf of individuals it does not represent is demonstrably the worst possible economic configuration. This is what we have now.

muirgeo December 17, 2011 at 2:08 pm


You haven’t addressed anything of the concerns I raised. You simply look down on peopelbecause they don’t know what you know and suggest they just shut up and accept things as they are.

Why don’t you try and make areasoned arguement for things the way they are or a suggestion of changes that would be more fair and effecient.

Right off I’d argue there’s a huge asymmetry in how we do money. Massive banks get acess to no interest dollars while the rest of us get to pay whatever rate the cartel decides.

Simple fixes that seem to make sense to me;

Financial transactions tax
Large increases in capital requirements
Seperate commecial and investment banking

Greg Webb December 17, 2011 at 2:52 pm

The fix is simple, George.

Let banks fail
Eliminate government subsidies
Implement sound money monetary policies

Previous post:

Next post: