• An Appeal for Austrianism

posted Jan 27, 2015, 6:53 AM by Sven Schiepers   [ updated Mar 16, 2015, 7:27 AM ]

The new-Keynesian hypocrisy: discrediting socialism, liberalism and the free market
Free market theory, I had these courses with the Krugman books, has always been a flawed theory in my experience. I quit my new-Keynesian economics program because of it. Summed up, I learned something like the following. "Free market is the theoretical consumer, therefore even socialist if you like that, optimum. In practice however, it doesn't work just as nice as in theory. Luckily we've got government to polish up these minor, practical inaccuracies." Everyone was cheerfully agreeing to do just a little trimming in the beautiful garden of competitiveness. Like the classic English garden represents the aesthetic, the new-Keynesian garden represents the sociological arrogance of creative superiority over nature.

Years later these minor inaccuracies are actually showing to be increasingly major. The current socio-economic system constructed by Krugman and his friends seems more inadequate with each passing day. His article about the situation regarding Greece says it all. He's asking for a political solution, where the German people should just agree on absolving Greek debt. Chief Architect Draghi can guarantee a shock-free transition by merely announcing the currency zone indivisible. Meanwhile in reality, Krugman's gentle garden trimming has become mechanised timber harvest. The ideological grounds for the interventionist practices of the 'economists of the scientific method' lies in the works of different social philosophers. 

The ideological basis is that everyone should have the the right and opportunity to build for himself an existence of prosperity. It is this, both liberal and socialist, notion from which the new-Keynesians claim democratic legitimacy for their policies. In reality, they're achieving exactly the opposite. The cunningness of it makes you wonder whether it's deliberate. First they simplified their ideological basis from 'the right and opportunity to build an existence of welfare' to 'the right to welfare'. Then they changed the definition of welfare from 'the health, happiness and fortune of a person' to 'the extent to which one receives junk for free'. They must have implemented this with the utmost refinement, as scores of people honestly believe the crises are over and behind us and prosperity lies ahead in our social democracies. In actuality, the system is highly elitist while pretending to be liberal-socialist. Their theory is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It approaches the average human being as a machine, and increasingly he acts like one. 

Being fed disinformation on a daily basis, one hopefully starts looking for truth on their own at some point. Someone advised me to check Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute. He told me they offered real insight and solutions. I've been reading them thoroughly for the past months. Unfortunately I'm not an Austrian scholar yet, so I don't know all details of their pricing theories or business cycle. I have been having some thoughts that I would like to share. 

The scourge of productivity: legislative barriers
Barriers to entry are the sources of monopoly power in a market. They can be legislative, demographical or monetary in nature. Austrians tackle the problem of legislative barriers relying on libertarian, anarchist or minarchist ideologies. Suppose an economy could really abandon political entry barriers by abandoning 99.9 to 100% of government, the monetary and demographical barriers would arguably remain. The new-Keynesians acknowledge these other barriers and devised the most hypocrite system for 'controlling' them: Politically initiated, micro- and legislative intervention.

I asked one prominent Austrian how to tackle this problem. He agreed there would always be barriers to entry of some kind. He said they shouldn't necessarily be that big of a problem. He took to the example of the two US soft-drink giants. They've always competed fiercely with low prices as results. This despite the fact that monetary entry barriers to the market are enormous. Still, the internal soft-drink market may be pretty efficient. The socio-economic reality however is not a simple addition of isolated markets. I therefore asked about the giants' common oligarchic interest of keeping the public as misinformed as possible about the health effects of regular and light soft-drinks alike. About the idea that nearly all 'consumer surplus' in such a market doesn't benefit consumers to the slightest. In reality, the real market beneficiary is the great junk food-healthcare cartel. My Austrian responder agreed but argued that without a government to lobby their disinformation to, problems regarding information-manipulating cartels would be far, far less in the US than they are today.

This makes a lot of sense. Why even bother fighting monetary barriers for the time being. Lobbying practices by firms are obvious attempts at attaining legislative market-power, probably the worst barrier of them all. Rent-seeking is very common and successful since most people are easily persuaded by the huge promised monetary rewards. If we could take away the platform these firms use for their rotten strategy, we might fix most of the problem. Austrians see market-oriented attempts at establishing a monopoly as something that's not necessarily negative for consumer interests. In Dominick Armentano's 'Antitrust the Case for Repeal', we read about the infamous Microsoft antitrust process. He argues that most if not all of Microsoft's monopolizing behaviour, was merely a sincere attempt at keeping ahead of competition in the most innovative market at the time. He argues that consumers benefited greatly from this great strategy. Microsoft eventually set a very high competitive standard with their attempt to monopolise the operating system market. In short, this behaviour is not necessarily
bad, as long as it is a legitimate market attempt[1].

The impossibility of unthinking political ideology
Unfortunately, two major problematic questions arise. First, could it even be a realistic possibility to abolish legislative barriers by denouncing politics? Does the family still exist in this system? If so, can two family heads work together to pursue both their families' interests? In this reasonable scenario, political evolution would already be inevitable. Humans are politics. It's their families and their agreements, their language. Man is the socio-political animal. No amount of abstract theorizing can change that. Abolishing contemporary government would not free us from politics, it would throw us back to kinship politics that grow from Bertrand de Jouvenel's natural elites. Which would indeed be a good thing compared to the current situation. 

In the natural free state, what about the first man that can formulate an idea that's beneficial to a large group of people? Can he be considered an elite? Can a group of men then devise an ideological and ethical system, based on voluntary agreements, that benefits the interests of a large group over those of a far smaller group? In other words, are the natural social elites allowed to organise themselves to end the reign of a monopolizing King? In even more words, can Mises attempt to improve the efficient continuity of our species by engaging in political argument with the purpose of communicating their view to an expanding group of people?

They must. Since they are in possession of the most efficient macro-organizational general theory, one could easily regard it as their ethical responsibility. Implementation of Austrian principles would arguably create higher welfare for 99% of the people in the world. Austrians engage in politics using a libertarian ideology that takes a lot of its current form from the work of M. Rothbard. The dream of some, for libertarianism to become a major, broadly carried democratic ideology, has already been forfeited. The new course of politics seems that of secession. Instead of educating the peoples of the world to bring about real change, they choose the local approach of separatism, much the same like the people of eastern Ukraine. However, force will be used by the Western governments to suppress any separatist movements, starting with the individual cases. We've had reports lately on the current state of the American psychological health dogmas. Today apparently, anti-authoritarianism is a common indicator for several 'newly discovered' mental diseases.

The eastern-Ukrainian people are very lucky to have access to Russian weapons. Would they not, their bid for freedom would have faltered already in the first week of their movement. How are libertarians in the US planning to fight off the scores of drones introducing themselves to the living rooms of private residences? Do they simply trust Alex Jones' followers to have collected enough private weaponry to fight off the game-nerd soldiers of the American Army? With drone warfare, the '30 second spawning time' enjoyed by the youth in on-line war games has become reality. Got shot down? Re-spawn and try again. With one hand on their mouse and the other in their pants, they will annihilate all conventional opposition with the utmost ease and ethical indifference. 

The oldest and most persistent monopoly of modern history
The second problem is even more important. There are numerous illegitimate non-legislative attempts at securing monopoly positions. Even if government would be abolished, these barriers would not necessarily vanish too. The most important ones are those that Marx tried to dismantle with his socialist philosophy. These are the barriers that originate in the lack of ownership of capital resources. What we might consider, is that Western contemporary national governments are the mere institutions of a monopoly much older and much larger: The Financiers' Monopoly. The Austrian business cycle theory is a critique of banking policies like fractional reserve and face-value money. Criminal practices like these were actually punishable by law once. Today however, these banks are politically legitimized institutions, the most important ones are even carrying noble public mandates. 

In a lot of 18th century German states however, the practice of banking was frowned upon. It was a dirty, unethical occupation. Creating paper without a 100% backing of gold or silver was strictly illegal in most places. Probably under influence of Christian anti-Semitic sentiment in Europe, a lot of Jewish people were condemned to engage in the money-changing business. The local wealth they often built up was seized regularly, much the same like estates of modern trafficking criminals. Then, halfway through the 18th century in The Free City of Frankfurt, there was a banker that managed to 'elevate' his possessions. Amsel de Rothschild created financial instruments that were impervious to local attacks. He created stocks, bonds and debts circulating among the political and business elite of the old cities of Europe. These virtual 'assets' generated income, but could not be dispossessed. His wealth grew and analogously did his influence on European states, to whom he and his sons eventually became the main creditors. Financing both sides in the World Wars and other disputes.

In the years before, numerous states had already engaged in the practice of money creation. This had always been a one sided, state-level competitive practice. The states that engaged in it enjoyed direct executive direction of productive power. It was an extremely powerful strategical tool for things like short-term warfare. Beyond the short term however, it often heavily undermined the productive competitiveness of the state opposed to others surrounding it. Aside from the occasional spoils of war, it was not a strategy that brought any long-term efficiencies. Lending from an international paper creditor however proved to be much more stable to the international competitiveness of the states of Europe, and consequently the financier dynasties thrived.

In the contemporary world market, creation of the world reserve does not necessarily destroy the economic prowess of those that create it. Losing faith in the dollar is losing faith in all finance structures across the globe. Virtually every salary of every person in the developed world is eventually connected to the gargantuan apparatus of the international dollar. Abolishing it seems impossible without bringing forth heavy shocks to the real economy, affecting real people. The financial and political imperial elites have constructed a system that's of vital importance to the survival of millions of people. Without it, the Western population would effectively be decapitated.

Therefore, the system of fiat money and interest rate policy is experienced as the only reasonable system. Without it, the very fabric of our civilizations would transform and the Western comfort still experienced by the largest minority would cease to be evident. The pyramid scheme is in it's final stages, but the collapse can not yet commence. First, the system's most prominent profiteers must secure their spoils. As it has historically always been the case, this last and desperate attempt at securing power is the unambiguous one: War.

Capitalism and Islamophobia
Paper money has a longer history. In the medieval Islamic world, various strenuous monetary economies had flourished and perished as their territorial sovereigns sought to conquer. The economic activity in these economies was unmatched. Persistent coin minting and the prohibition of receiving interest made that any economic activity was always more worthwhile than no activity at all. Saving didn't really exist. When one had income to spare it was encouraged to donate it or social-spend it. In these economies, scholars were the most highly paid of all, matching salaries comparable to modern day professional athletes[3]. 

The Islamic interpretation of a society differs fundamentally from the Western one as it lacks most contributions of the great modern western philosophers. Fundamental differences between the Western interpretation and those of other continents are the most prominent threat to the longevity of the system. What if the Western academic world could incorporate some beneficial ideas from other continental ideologies? They could actually start moving toward a synthesis of ideas that would radically change the current socio-economic reality. The entrenched politico-capitalist elite doesn't want this to happen, even though it could be highly beneficial to our societies. 

They have succeeded with respect to Islam insofar that any fundamental ideas of the Qu'ran are likely to be instantly disregarded. The very idea of an economy without formal interest rates is an idea laughed upon in the global credit economy.

What they probably do like, is Austrian economists getting caught up in a 19th century interpretation of property rights, the interpretation they build their legitimacy on.

Legislative lunacy: The vast judiciary systems and gigantic legal sectors are the last barrier for social democracy to claim victory over property-elitism. The whole system is one enormous barrier to entry, to anything. A huge investment in legal personnel is an absolute survival necessity for any firm that might wish to survive. Those who cannot spend excessively on the elite legal- and financial workforces are obliterated within weeks.

Further, there is no competition when it comes to finance. Every financial institution has become the embodiment of that one principle: handsome capital returns. Since the sole objective of monetary policy around the world is growth, grow we shall. It was Edward Abbey who wrote "growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell". As a result, all financial interactions involving money pass up a little tiny amount up the growth-pyramid. Serving the one and only God their system knows.

Rediscovering political philosophy: Austrianism , the social-organizational theory that could unite the freedom seeking masses of the world
Not by a world government, but united by freedom and prosperity. Austrian economists around the world can be divided by

The founders of the Austrian School were not united by political ideology. There actually existed an ideological division among them. Some called themselves liberals and some called themselves socialists.

What do Austrians really need for a functioning system. Is it essentially freedom regarding property or is it freedom regarding economic transaction? 
The Rothbardian approach to property rights is derived from classical European liberalism. It's merely an ideological construction that should be open to debate in the current paradigm. 

Maybe it's time to get back to more basic questions like the singularity of money. Everything is exchangeable for everything. Is this a good thing? Could it be changed? Anthropologists have pointed out that alot of ancient tribal societies used dual monetary systems, with a regular and a special currency that were not freely interchangeable. This money has been called "non-commercial", "ceremonial", "primitive". "social" or "special-purpose" currency[2].

What about a global economy 

What is the basic unit of a democracy? Is it an individual, or could it be a group.
Wouldn't it be possible for the Misesian scholars 

The democratic state could be viewed as the sociological entity of shared consensual restrictions on individual autonomy. These restrictions are the sole essence of politics. They are already present in the natural family life. All siblings get a proportionate amount of food by restricting each others' behaviour.  

Marx' ideology was very strong and naturally evident for many people. Great revolutions were empowered by it. To summarize socialism in one sentence is impossible. I'll give my own interpretation of it:  'egalitarianism with respect to essential humanitarian criteria'.

The old governments of Europe were pure coercive kingdoms designed to facilitate only different kinship elites. This had all ended now, because of democratic peasant and worker revolutions alike. The common man now, is off surely a lot better than some centuries agoWhat though, if our governments aren't by any means democratic. What if they do not at all represent the institutions of important ideology of the great political philosophers? What if these contemporary governments were only a form institutionalized oligarchic compromise, as governments have always been in some form or other? What if par example, any contemporary socialist political party had absolutely nothing to do with Marx' philosophy, but only with his economics? What if common people weren't at all better off now then centuries ago, when weighing an economic productivity factor?

Our governments aren't democratic, and they don't want to be. We've had the internet laying around for decades now. Every aspect of life is integrated with it, except for one: political legitimate decision making. Our governments are merely tools of the invested elite. Is this elite's real power political or monetary in nature? It could be argued it's mostly monetary. Real democracy has the potential to disintegrate their power structure, and they're afraid of it. The new-Keynesians are very keen for the idea that contemporary central banks are independent institutions, bound solely by their mandate. They are legitimized institutions and publicly supported by our representatives. Their monetary policy has created a financial industry with elites of risk addicted psychopaths, prospering alongside the political elite. They appear to be the same elite, same interests, same agenda's. What could we call that thing which they both are? Do we simply call them government, or could we perhaps offer a more thorough characterization?

We will need a better understanding of 'government' first. Max Weber calls it the territorial monopolist of ultimate decision making. It could be a faulty premise.
We're dealing with the classic problem: The statement 'Barack is a tyrant' is not the same as 'a tyrant is Barrack'. In the same way, when 'a territorial monopolist of compulsion is a government', it does not necessarily constitute Weber's assumption: 'a government is a territorial monopolist of compulsion'. Arguably, a government could be a number of different things. 

Let's investigate the classic liberal property-rights. First of all, the ideas of Mises and other modern classic liberals are formulated according to the late 19th century socio-political reality. Since a 100 years however, the paradigm has shifted beyond recognition. This fact could be accepted and incorporated in Austrian economics much more thoroughly than the ideology of Rothbard can prescribe. 

A new synthesis of both socialist and liberal ideologies, could be the exact opposite of liberal socialism. The good and the evil twins. It could consist of all kinds of liberal and socialist notions and aspects not incorporated in the contemporary liberal socialist systems. 

Capitalism isn't a synonym for free market interaction whatsoever. 

The most prominent proponents of the ideal social economic allocation appear to be the furthest removed from genuine Marxist and socialist philosophy. I do not claim Mises should rebrand as a socialist institution. I'm merely asking for deep investment in the rediscovery of the importance of political philosophy. 

Philosophy vs the Scientific Method: Continuity vs Extinction

Graeber 2011: 130

I still suspect the solution lies within some democratic appeal of the masses.

• 2014 Oil Price Collapse is Economic Warfare

posted Jan 16, 2015, 5:26 AM by Sven Schiepers   [ updated Jan 27, 2015, 12:10 PM ]

Wall Street Journal reporter David Bird discovered oil market vulnerability in 2013 - Missing ever since

The oil price collapse is pure economic warfare

When the financial crisis hit the western banking system in 2008, the Federal Reserve started their controversial monetary stimulus. In addition to a near-zero percent interest on overnight borrowing, the Fed has since pumped almost $4000 billion into the economy. That’s over 23% of the country’s total productive output in 2013.

A lot of industries were severely crippled during the first stages of the crisis. One of the few safe and profitable investments was in the the US shale industry. Reportedly, production could be competitive from $25-30 a barrel after it’s initial fase. The price ranged from roughly $50 in late 2008 to $110 before the current drop. Suspectedly, astronomical amounts of free money flowed directly into this environmentally unsustainable, high-yield business.

As a result, the US is currently the biggest oil producer in the world. Their net imports declined from 4.4 billion barrels in 2008 to 2.3 billion barrels in 2013. For the past six months, we’ve seen nothing but positive signals implying a recovery of the US economy. A recovery could prompt the Federal Reserve to temper their stimulative monetary policy. This would mean higher interest rates on dollars, which strengthens demand for the international ‘safe-haven’.

A strong dollar means that commodities traded in dollars become more expensive in other currencies. More expensive commodities slow down productive activity in these economies. Less productive activity around the world means less oil is needed and so over-supply is lurking. No one really expects an over-supply though, because most OPEC cartel members need prices well above $70 a barrel to stay solvent in the middle-longterm. Historically, they would cut production to set their desired price.

OPEC didn’t and no one seemed to have expected the decision. Some will tell you it is a political plot between the US and SA governments. We can’t really know and it doesn’t matter. The reasons OPEC has for not cutting production are legitimate. If they’d cut production now, shale would stay the extremely lucrative investment it has been in the past years. Prices would stabilize, but shale market-share would continue to grow at an even faster pace.

The effects I described have been forecast in 2013. David Bird was an oil and commodities market reporter for the Wall Street Journal. In one of his last articles he wrote the following.

"Crude-oil futures fell after the minutes from the Federal Reserve’s latest policy meeting heightened concerns that less economic stimulus could hit demand for the fuel…

Traders are worried that the end of the $85 billion-a-month bond-buying

program will cause dollar-based crude prices to rise in local-currency terms, choking off economic growth [and recovery] in other markets that has fueled a rise in global oil consumption in recent years"

Bird disappeared shortly after. Although we can’t know why or how he disappeared, he surely hit on something big. He saw a connection between the monetary policy of the central bank, shale industry, dollar rates and eventually oil futures. As soon as the Fed even talked about scaling back, oil futures started falling. He discovered that the Federal Reserve had the potential to heavily influence the global oil markets, only by announcing legitimate domestic monetary policy changes. It’s is exactly what they did in October 2014 after months of perverted positive indicators flowed into the financial news. The market hesitantly followed Bird's prediction.

A surprise factor is crucial in dealing such an economic blow to other economies. Would Bird have come forward with his analysis, markets and governments could have reacted much sooner. The shock wouldn’t have hit so hard. Lead investigator Chief of the Longhill Township Police Department Michael Mazzeo stated that they didn’t think his work could have had anything to do with his disappearance. I wonder whether the local sheriff is even capable of seeing geopolitical, economic warfare as a motive for abduction or murder.


Figures and numbers are rough google results, if you don't like them, correct them in comments please.

David Bird Wall Street Journal article seems unretrievable through google searches. Alternative US media are quoting it. I’m sure someone can find the original if it’s out there.

Michael Mazzeo and disappearance of David Bird

• The deteriorating state of the natural and sociocultural environment

posted Nov 1, 2014, 8:34 AM by Sven Schiepers   [ updated Jan 26, 2015, 4:34 AM ]


In the last decades it has become increasingly noticeable that the eccentric drive for high corporate return on capital may very well lead to an overall diminishing quality in consumer end-products. This phenomenon has been most obviously displayed in the foodstuffs market. Here, the heedless drive for corporate percentiles has systematically and blatantly corroded the nutritional value of most commonly bought food products. The result is a civilization of individuals who are growing increasingly weak and ill. For combating this overall weakness and illness they heavily rely on another market. Also infamously known for its monstrous returns, the medicine and health market. This drive for return however has got a hold of virtually every market, concerning consumer products or other. A dishwasher will maybe last half a decade before it turns to trash and most clothes are made and marketed to only last one season. To speak about the wages that are paid producing these products is unnecessary here, as most people know exploitation of (child)labour is still highly abundant in our world. This trend of an overall decrease in consumer surplus or an increase in serf-like labour conditions is a painful reality for most households throughout the world. Also, examples of horrendous and total devastation of extremely complex natural ecosystems are abundant among the players in the highly competitive international resource markets. The contemporary world economy has come to serve one and one goal only; rapid return on capital, or using a more positive connotation, rapid growth.

With the 2008 US real estate collapse and the aftershocks that plagued the international financial sector, the fragility of the heavily indebted growth driven economies of the western hemisphere suddenly became painfully apparent. The subsequent publicly financed bail-outs of numerous insolvent financiers have confirmed what socialist and neo-Marxist scholars have argued for decades; the capitalist financing system, through the nature of western property laws, exhibits prodigious opportunities for monopolistic exploitation and accumulation. The power of an oligarchy could over time grow to proportions that rival whole nation states or heavily intertwine with them. Since owning capital resources generates more capital resources, a situation of ever growing socioeconomic inequality can arise between wealthy and destitute individuals, between proprietors and the property-less. Although this phenomenon is well known in the practical world, it was not until half a year ago that French economist Thomas Piketty published compelling historical empirical evidence that there indeed has been a vast wealth accumulation mechanism at work. He predicts an increasingly oligarchic and socio-economic unequal future for mankind. He proposes a political solution consisting of property taxes of up to 2% and income taxes of up to 80%.

Initially, political development throughout the world has been a series of power struggles between kinship groups. From these toils some groups arose with an expedient position. Other, less fortunate groups however could decide and agree on mutual partnerships if the burden laid on them by exploitation of other groups rose too greatly. For thousands of years these kinship politics evolved, matured and vanished time and again. In some parts of the world politics grew increasingly individualistic as modern states sought to ever further increase their power. Historically the first state to acquire central authoritarian power over a vast and populated area was the very short lived Chinese Qin dynasty in 221BC. The empire lasted only for 15 years but the system of impersonal administration and undermining of local kinship based authority proved to be unequalled in its ability to efficiently mobilize resources on an enormous scale. The Qin empire fell fast due to internal factors, since externally it was entirely unmatched.

These internal political struggles can be dissected into struggles of individuals dissatisfied with their relative position in their social environment. These individuals will organize themselves under the most suitable religion, ideology or charismatic leader of their time. These struggles have historically always involved violence, since the most natural means for redistributing wealth is simply by seizing it. In the modern western nation state however the redistributing-violence within society has been abolished on a ethicultural level, which could readily be considered a step forward in the human social evolution. Though, what other mechanisms remain for achieving an internal power-equilibrium? Theoretically this should be the popular vote, but since none of the modern democracies come even close to the ideal theoretical democracy, the popular vote seems to function more as a superficially satisfying illusion than a real tool for policy development.

The power that is generated by capitalizing the monopolistic opportunity, over time can grow to vast proportions. There are indications of different large, intermarrying families who have skilfully and in some cases quite successfully retained and expanded their power over centuries. Today however, the wealthy are allied by sheer common interest rather than family ties. They are bound by the interest of generating an average return on capital of at least 12% or so a year, making absolutely sure their power can only ever grow. Every year the return on capital is higher than the growth of the economy, wages will proportionally fall further behind, ever enlarging the gap between these occupants and their minions.

Through ownership of mainstream media outlets public opinion is homogenized and possibly deliberately deprived of intellectual and reflective aspects. Manifestations like the American truth movement, who seek to identify an objective truth about geopolitical events like 9/11, are systematically portrayed as fringe phenomena. This despite the fact that hundreds of MScs and PhDs and tens of thousands of other Americans are genuinely involved in the movement. That we all live in and contribute to a global economy that is highly suboptimal, especially in the longer run, is an obvious truth to an increasing number of people. Aside from the recognizable decrease in the quality/price of nearly all products necessary to life, the demeanour of the human collective(the ecopolitical reality) toward highly valued, indispensable and continuous elements, like nature or ethical and aesthetic values, causes most anguish and apprehension.

At first, state-interventionism seems the most obvious and qualified tool for keeping oligarchic power in check. However, there do arise some serious problems regarding this solution since there is absolutely no guarantee that a government will genuinely defend the interests of its democratic peripherals. Perfect competition implicates a total absence of monopoly opportunity and would therefore serve as another theoretical solution. It implicates an absence of government too however. These two solutions appear to be mutually exclusive. These opposite characters are explained by their different ideological background. It is however debatable whether socialist and libertarian ideologies are essentially that different.

Please read more next time:

 “An attempt to fundamentally and ideologically unite socialist and libertarian economics”


Please, would you be so kind as to share any comments, feedback, criticism, suggestions, additions, deletions etc. The sole purpose of my posts will be to initiate and engage in a collective, community driven dialogue

1-3 of 3