This weird cross breed of Keynesianism and Marxism supported by Comrade Obama (some fool is bound to claim some racial angle in the words “cross breed”, but I am not going to bow to such fools) is more recent.

As far as I can remember (from when I studied such mattes) it is from the Italian Marxist Piero Sraffa, with the help of his British friend Maurice Dobb.

By the way there is an element of what Marx would have called (and not as a complement) utopean socialism as well – for example in that mutant, solar cell company in Colorado where Comrade Barack visited to sign the latest government spending binge.

All 59 odd employees paid the same (regardless of their work) and all business judgments made by disscussion and universal agreement.

This sort of “ethical socialism” may show the influence of Barack Obama’s first master in the Marxist arts – “Frank” was considered a heretic by the mainstream Marxists in Chicago, which is why he went off to Hawaii.

How difficult is it to find out all of the above? Not difficult at all.

How many Americans know it?

About one in a hundred?

There is the problem with democracy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-fraud-bigger-than-madoff-1622987.html

Its time this criminal government agency was shut down permanently.

The most important part of the article is the admission that Bush was not a radical free-market president, but one who expanded government radically, both through regular policy and crisis response. If we can frame the debate that way, we can promote free markets a response to left-right statism, instead of being painted as failures of the “old order”.

we are certainly not all monetarists now. Monetarists have been just as comprehensively discredited.

Really? Has the notion that massively increasing the money supply will trigger inflation and asset bubbles been “discredited?” I’d say recent events rather play straight into the argument put forward by the late M. Friedman that control of money is rather important. Of course there are differences between the “Chicago” and “Vienna” strands of free market thought over what to do about banks, money, etc, but I’d say the core contentions of the monetarists hold up pretty well. Provide some evidence to the contrary.

And the canard that monetarism destroyed manufacturing in the UK is debatable: i’d say manufacturing was destroyed by the mix of inflation, trade union mass priviledges, high taxes, and the accumulated policy errors of decades. The idea that Maggie shut it down all by herself is not worthy even of the Guardian.

We are most of us nowadays Keynesian proto-serfs, at the mercy of celebrities (cf. nobiles) and their infotainment-besotted supporters. We’re just waiting for the bread to run out.

BTW, the “porkulus” package supposedly aims in part at eliminating freedom of speech on the Internet. I suppose that this is to be able to continue to divert suspicion from the hidden hand of the non-market as it witlessly twists the knife.

Oh, and Claudia, where are those weapons of mass destruction your neo-con buddies harped on about?

We are not all socialists, but we are certainly not all monetarists now. Monetarists have been just as comprehensively discredited.

Britain is now facing ruin because we have no manufacturing industry (which the monetarists destroyed).

So what is your alternative for voting for a pro-capitalist party, then? Those who voted Tory in 1979 did not get rid of socialism, but they sure got rid of some of it. Half a loaf is better than nothing.

If you have better ideas, provide them or do the other thing.

Wrong. If I vote for a pro-capitalist party that actually reverses or halts some aspects of socialist lunacy, I am not. The “we are all guilty” line belongs to the satirical Peter Simple columns of the late Michael Wharton.

EXACTY – and You are NONE! of those things.

You may have voted for a pro-capitalist party but they didn’t gain power, and they didn’t reverse socialism. THAT IS THE POINT!

GULITY.