Jason Erb has been actively involved in the alternative research community since 2006 and has been writing for his blog, Exposing Faux Capitalism, since the start of the global financial collapse of 2008 and since 2009, has guest hosted other radio programs and has been hosting his weekly radio show since 2012.
Jason covers economic, financial and political issues from a unique and uncompromisingly fact-based perspective, and isn’t afraid to name names and say what’s really on his mind, so that you can make informed decisions about what’s really going on in the world.
Contact me at fauxcapitalist@yahoo.com.
Thanks for the site!
Another “recovering austrian” here, hehe.
But I’ve come to the conclusion money is evil, it’s a bad,unnecesary invention, help yourself, in rural communities.
World before money was better.
They try to contain the debate in the “the current system is bad,banks, bad economy, not working for us… so they attack first with oh, the current system is bad,it’s temporary, just let’s go back to gold/silver and forget this episode…”
No, this is a continuation of the scam known as money.
Freemen have LAND, that’s it, not coins of adamantium or whatever,I don’t care.
Freemen have LAND and communities/tribes,a “folk”.
Money was IMPOSED BY FORCE.
The bigest austrian lie is the “spontaneous” evolution of the “institution of money”.
Money is roman, positive, state law. Not “natural”.
Gold was in very few places,and hard to extract and manufacture, and unnecesary, humanity survived for long without it, so, why the need?
Capitalism is not economics, it’s control, a tractor is not more efficient than 50 neighbors working their own field in a day.
Think on the real cost of the machine, the mines, the development, the needed highways, the petrol, the seller, technicians, the bankers who would OWN now the fields as “security” for the machine…
And they would then centralize the food production in one person, the machine.
Before, working the fields was your right and your food, your security.
If a machine from someone else does it… you’ll have to beg the owner, work in his system…
Just to say, great blog, surprised I haven’t come across it before now.
Keep up the excellent work.
The White Rabbit!
http://www.occupythebanks.com (and thinking about it, directly relevant: http://www.open-transactions.com … check out the demo, and interview) ;)
People keep falling into their trap (I see it above in the comments), the solution to Corporatism is not to move the power from one corrupt entity (central banks) to another (government), it is for PRIVATE CURRENCIES, issued BY THE PEOPLE, to replace, with ever increasingly speed, the CORRUPT current (two party) system. If I had a penny for every ‘capitalist’ that is falling for this trap of their ‘to demand the government issues the money’, I’d be rich, right now, rather than writing on a blog at 3am!).
PPS check out http://wwwoccupyventurecapital.com in a few weeks, fingers crossed!
[...] About [...]
Keep up the good work getting out your info its much needed in such a world full of lies! http://AntiNewWorldOrderParty.Wordpress.com
Thanks, Daniel.
To Jason Erb
I received an email that seemed to be from you. Since I’ve had security problems, I wanted to make sure that it was you who who sent it and that you also got my reply, which I sent from the address to which you wrote.
I’d much appreciate it if you could reply at my blog or here for security or leave me a contact phone number to reach you.
Thanks very much for your interest.
Lila Rajiva
Hi Lila, it was indeed from me, and I’ll be following up with you by email. Thanks.
Just thought you and like minded individuals would like to read
http://www.alternet.org/economy/149659/stop_the_austerity_craze!_massive_budget_slashing_can_lead_to_economic_disaster,_violence_and_repression/?page=1
You don’t have to agree with all the points, but it sure does shed an interesting light on the history of austerity.
Questions:
• Is any white person’s right an individual or collective right?
• Is the right to take a negative or positive right?
“[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land … Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.” ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974
I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time last year, and only got about 20% through it when I had picked up on enough interesting points and got bored of her tiring writing.
She lost credibility as any hero when I heard her, as an alleged atheist, despite being from a Jewish background, predictably take the side of the Israelis over the Palestinians, and feed into the racist notion that exists in Israel today that a Jewish guy I went to university with saw himself, and came back only to proclaim his atheism.
The woman had some serious flaws in logic and character.
Eric,
You may or may not have a point. If you do, I cannot tell what it is by reading half of the rants so far. The “foaming like a mad dog” description is not that far off.
Lots and lots of what capitalism isn’t. Would you please consider learning to create a paragraph when you write? Maybe even jot down a few notes before you write instead of simply a train-of-thought diarrhea?
Money should be issued by the people. Good point. It said that in the US constitution. It also says it should only be gold and silver. The reason, I believe, is that this idea that a smart group of people in a room can predict the proper amount of currency (not money, because it is not a store of value, according to you) that could be in circulation has never worked in history. It is a pipe dream, as in, “No, no, but they never had the REALLY smart guys who cared about justice in the room like I would have.”
Ramble on, baby.
I’m not sure what you meant by all that, or if you just like trying to hurt people, but I will say this: when you go to a bank to borrow, the bank just gives you a bunch of IOU’s so you can borrow from someone else. If it is to “buy” a house for example, you are borrowing a house from a lender of a house. The lender doesn’t see himself as a lender because he can transfer the debt conveniently in a large economy. If you have money in your pocket, it is already extinguished if you are going to use it for a bank payment. If not, you are a lender. You are the lender, not the bank. The bank makes compounding interest when you are the lender.
The Cornfield needs you, Eric. We’ve got too many mainstream cons on the board. I’ve provided the web address with this post as my website, though the forum certainly does not belong to me.
Can someone redirect me to Eric’s website?
Hey Eric maybe you should start your own blog.
Do you like what I’m saying, or, are you being an a@#hole?
Is Eric the only person who reads this site?
Why don’t you address what I’m saying and have a discussion about it smart guy.
In a nutshell, the bankers have convinced everyone that free credit is communism and wealth-redistribution is capitalism. Duh. They have convinced everyone that currency is the same as money, and you can convert your earnings to currency and safely store that currency in their banks and it will always maintain its purchasing power, and if it doesn’t there is a good reason for that, just don’t ask, let alone analyze, what it is. They have convinced that the fact that the only reason currency has any value is not because someone is trying to capture it to pay a debt of currency. Thus we accept inflation without question or come up with “rational” but illogical explanations for it. They offer a “solution” called a gold standard. The only thing gold is good for besides its direct use as trade (it is the essence of the definition of money) is storing in a bank that would manage the checkbook and debit card trading of said metal. A bank that can be easily audited at any given time. A service providing non-parasitic bank. Using a currency that is not an IOU and is based on a commodity that can be limited to a finite amount or can be discovered to have a relatively infinite amount or can be horded is absurd. Money value is set by supply and demand of a metal. It floats in value just as the value of someone’s skill. Currency value does not “float” by nature and is only limited by the potential of a man to produce something to capture the currency that was spent by that man. Currency is an IOU, it is not money. Money is an “I just gave you what I owed you and now no one owes you anything”. Currency should be issued by the public to the public. Nobody is going to horde currency because it can easily be transformed to an “IOU less” than I did before. Nobody is going to pay usury for something that they can have issued for temporary use usury free. The word “interest” should never be confused with a charge for a loan of currency. Interest is something that is earned on a company stock that was purchased. I loan my labor in exchange for your debt that I can now trade. Even, fair trade. Why should we be paying a “broker” commission for the notes we used in that transaction. At most we should only be paying for the printing and issuing administration costs of currency. I purchase something for an amount of currency and agree to do something to recapture that currency regardless of the market value of my product or service at any given time. Currency is an IOU something, or at least someone owes you something. Currency is what enables us to work together to improve our standard of living. Currency is something that can be traded for money. It really hurt my brain to come up with this so copy it and send it to your friends. It’s not the kill, it’s the thrill of the chase.
In a capitalist society:
The same government agency collecting taxes would issue currency interest free to those in the community committed to producing a good or service and committing a percentage of what they produce to those who administrate governance and the budget allocated to infrastructure. Currency for the duration of the producers participation in the market. Why should a debtor pay interest for giving others jobs and the opportunity to trade their debt? That only makes sense to greedy, greedy, communist rats. The percentage the producer pays in taxes would be the same for everyone with the only exception being disabled exemptions. Wealth-redistribution only makes sense to greedy, greedy, communist rats. Let’s see who ultimately is behind all the “progressive” indoctrination. Let’s see the communist banksters try to argue that wealth-redistribution doesn’t mean communism but free debt does. Can’t you see it? If there is such thing as a “silver bullet”, this is it. Make it your own. The definition of communism is a place where people are divided over wealth-redistribution. It’s a law of nature since the beginning of time. The bankers have you fooled.
So the communists control you by hiring politicians to be in “opposition”. Some of the politicians want to “help” you by pressuring for more wealth-redistribution. Some of the politicians want to “help” you by pressuring for less wealth-redistribution. You’re thinking that somehow the right amount of wealth-redistribution will equalize its way out through this dichotomy. The politicians constantly do things to make themselves look stupid. They do things to themselves in order to frame their “opponent”. They keep a balance of support between themselves. You’re convinced you have a choice when both are working for communists. They are a two sided thing. Communism. You call the controllers capitalists, globalists, corporatists, or anything other than communists and they laugh all the way to the bank they own. The communists write the definitions. They hire poor people to call themselves communists to distract you. A commune is a place where the people are divide over wealth-redistribution. That’s what they want. They are communists. They are the “dictator”. They won. I would be in admiration of these people but I don’t think they even know how what they are doing works. They are compelled to do it. Oh, plausible deniability. Wait, feasible self-denial? You can question their definition of communism. Honestly, the king has no clothes.
The “thought police” prize goes to a guy with a blog about bicycles. It’s really cool. Apparently he thinks it’s just my “point of view”. It’s just your point of view that it’s wrong for private banksters to print money and charge usury on it. It’s just your point of view that it’s even happening at all. The next time I edit that definition I’ll add that the “thought police” will turn logical statements into matters of opinion. I think his point of view is from behind a pair of beautifully rosy colored glasses. If I knew where to buy them I would. Sometimes I’m asked if it is me that is brainwashed to which I answer “I ask myself that every day. Do you?”. Until recently I would watch 911 footage and say to myself “there goes those buildings in the wind”. I never really questioned how buildings could turn to dust. It didn’t cross my mind. Sick.
I just posted this on Wikipedia under “crimestop”. Tee hee.—-”The quintessential example of crimestop can be observed in the reaction a person has to the suggestion that a system with wealth-redistribution is communism and a system without wealth-redistribution is capitalism. logically it is absolutely true but because of conditioning people react emotionally to that statement as nonsense and even offensive if not simply “dangerous thought”.– Let’s see how long it takes the thought police to remove it. It didn’t take long when I edited the definitions of capitalism and communism.
So what I’m saying is that you can’t have wealth-redistribution. You just can’t. None. Period. Does that mean you can’t have socialism? Does socialism mean wealth-redistribution? Isn’t maintaining society socialism? Is a program that takes care of disabled people the same as “redistributing wealth” to those who can take care of themselves? You just can’t have politicians representing the “poor working man” versus the politicians representing “the free market” while everyone but them and their elite handlers get shafted(drones vs. slave market?). Can you imagine choosing politicians based on how they will approach various problems none of which has anything to do with how much wealth is going to be redistributed? Can you imagine positive things getting done by a government a fraction of the size currently? Can you imagine capitalism? Finally, here’s one that really goes against you’re Orwellian conditioning. In a community the means of production and trade is capital. In a commune the means of production and trade is communal.
With wealth-redistribution definitely division and constant conflict. Without wealth-redistribution not constant conflict and division. Which sounds better? I assume you don’t want constant conflict. The divided are conquered. With wealth-redistribution you have those who generally want more wealth-redistribution and those who want less wealth-redistribution than those who want generally more. It’s so easy to get these two general factions to hate each other, yet neither exists without the other. Is this hurting your brain? I understand. I wish I could stop thinking about it. Did I ask if you like to syllogize? Anyone in a faction created by wealth-redistribution trying to destroy or kill someone in another faction created by wealth-redistribution is killing themselves. Bottom line – wealth-redistribution = constant change/conflict. Getting rid of wealth-redistribution = change. iKarly, you were such a rascal. Are you still wondering why we have a duopoly political leadership funded by the power elite? Yup, communism.
Could I possibly convince you that a system with wealth-redistribution is communism and a system without wealth-redistribution is capitalism? I know that emotionally and by condition it is impossible to accept, but I’m talking about logic. I’m using logic and reason instead of emotion and conditioning to come to a conclusion. I am suggesting that there is no fantasy land where everyone agrees how much and whose wealth is going to be redistributed. There is a land where there is constant conflict over how much and whose wealth is going to be redistributed – it’s called THE EARTH. Amazingly there is an elite that are monopolizing power as the masses are distracted by this constant conflict. Logically I must conclude that this elite are communists and anyone duped by them are communists. Anyone that knows that you can’t have wealth-redistribution would be called a capitalist. Logic?
Nothing you described bears any resemblance to communism, and essentially all you’ve done is foam incohrently like a barking dog, using communism as a pejorative. So much for logic.
Just for fun, here is my interpretation of excerpts from the Communist Manifesto. Compare it to the original, and ask yourself honestly if the great genius banker agent Karl Marx wasn’t thinking something similar to what I suggest he was thinking.
The spectrum of Communism haunts the world. All the powers of the bank have entered into an evil alliance to exercise this spectrum: Pope and Queen, Kissinger and Brzezinski, MI6 and CIA.
Everything Marx said was the opposite of what he meant. It was all about creating controlled opposition.
Two things result from this fact:
1. Communism has conquered the planet.
2. What people think of as “communism” is a nursery tale.
The measure of tyranny in all the countries on the spectrum will be different. Nevertheless, even in the least tyrannical communist country the following will be pretty definitely applicable:
1. The public cash will be rented out by the Power Elite Bankers.
2. A progressive tax so that the producing class will be in controlled conflict with itself.
So what is the philosophy of Ziggy and Kissy? So glad you asked. They are communists. Do you know what communism is? No, you don’t. What do communists do? They introduce wealth-redistribution into your society then redefine terms like communism and capitalism – done. They win. Tyranny is when you think you’re a communist but you know you have no choice. Communism is when you think you’re a democracy and you think you have a choice. Capitalism is when you know what communism is and you have a choice. Here is a hint – people are not divided over their independence. People are not divided over world views that don’t encompass them. I know I’m not crazy. I know I’m not crazy – maybe a little.
Faux capitalism? That’s a good one! Never call it what it is – COMMUNISM! It’s either capitalism or it’s communism – that’s how those terms work – opposites. The confusing thing is that there is only one kind of capitalism(a system with no wealth-redistribution) and there is a whole huge spectrum of different forms or levels of communism(a system with wealth-redistribution). Logic. Yes, the US is a communist country and (honestly not trying to demean you) you are brainwashed. Ziggy and Kissy are philosophers and they will never tell you what their philosophy really is. You’re probably wondering what wealth-redistribution has to do with communism. Don’t worry I know you probably think this is a bunch of nonsense. But then again, there is allways a chance. Never lose hope. Thank you for the information you provide. Sorry if I sound harsh but wits end and all.