London School of Economics has won the undeserved acclaim for being a good economic school. It could be said that this school is an academic version of Utøya island, where Norwegian socialists have indoctrinated the youth. Among the people who founded LSE was for instance Bernard Shaw, who supported Stalin, and who told people that Gulag is sort of a luxurious spa, and Clement Richards Attlee, the UK’s post-World War II prime minister – today’s equivalent of Barack Obama in the USA – who nationalised many branches of industry, introduced national health care, and de facto put the United Kingdom on the road to the economic catastrophe that came in the following years.
It is common knowledge that a good school is a school that produces famous people. In LSE we can find plenty of such people. This school has produced, among others, Robert Mugabe. It is almost impossible to point out a greater fool in the field of economics than Mugabe himself. Having a dozen or so academic titles, this dictator graduated from LSE and caused the second greatest (after Germany) hyperinflation, at the peak of which prices doubled every 34 hours. 40 years ago, Zimbabwe was the second (after RSA) richest African country. Today, it is the second (after North Korea) poorest country in the world. Not bad, for a graduate of reportedly the best school of economics.
Why are people who destroy always more famous and popular? Probably everyone in the world knows the name Robert Mugabe. But no one heard of Khama Seretse, who transformed Botswana from the second poorest country in the world into the second richest country in Africa. For the past 30 years, Botswana was developing at a rate of 9,3%. No one heard of David Lange, the prime minister of New Zealand, who reformed the country in such a way that after 30 years, the incomes of New Zealanders have increased eightfold. The same scenario applies to Mart Laar, an Estonian prime minister in his thirties, who is responsible for the economic success of this country.
Basically, a pattern can be observed. The more a politician is famous, the worse he turns out to be. However, could a politician who caused a catastrophe be still called a politician? I was good at maths in school. The rest of my schoolmates did worse than me. When one of my friends was asked to solve an equation and made a mistake, the teacher used to say that he wouldn’t become a mathematician. So if a person who is unable to solve an equation is not a mathematician, a politician who ruins people’s lives, instead of improving them, is not a politician.
The same can be applied to economics. If a person is famous, he is also called eminent. Usually when I read some information about Marx, I can see that an author of the description uses the term “eminent economist”. Marx might have been famous, but he was never eminent, not to mention that he was definitely not an economist. Just as my friends from school were not mathematicians.
Marx was in love with the theory of exploitation. He claimed that the labouring class will always be exploited and poor. Even if an increase in productivity will cause an increase in wages, the labourers, having more money, will have more children, and therefore will need more money to spend on their children. The vicious circle closes, and the life of a labourer will always boil down to the struggle for food for his children. Marx wrongly assumed that the more resources people have, the more children they will be willing to conceive. However, the experience tells us something totally different. Anyway, Marx himself wasn’t good at knowing people. So it would be impossible for him to have been good at economics, which is not a pure science, but knowledge based on human nature. Marx was a sadistic alcoholic who maltreated his wife, and led his two daughters to suicides. His remaining three children died, as literature shows, of starvation.
Several decades ago, John Calhoun conducted an experiment. He prepared a huge place that could hold up to the three thousand rodents. Calhoun put four males and four females in this place, and provided them with perfect living conditions. Free access to food and water, no contagious diseases, no predators. Just eat and drink. A perfect environment.
At first, the population doubled every 50 days. After 300 days there were 600 mice. And then the birth rate began to cease. The last rodent to survive was born on the 600th day. The animals totally lost it. The females became aggressive. They pushed the cubs away from the nest, they also lost their sexual drive. The males, on the other hand, stopped fighting for the territory, and began to display homosexual behaviour on a large scale. Despite the lack of any threats, after ca. 1500 days the whole population died out. It was not the matter of a population holding at a stable rate. This population became extinct.
Calhoun’s experiment clashes with what I was taught at school. To cut a long story short, I was told that once the storks vanish, the frogs will rule the world. But this is not the case. Once the storks vanish, the frogs will disappear as well. The same can be observed in business. I am a representative of so-called first generation rats – of the rats that got nothing for free. I needed to earn everything myself. Frequently illegally, because it was forbidden to hire children under 16, apart from the cultural, artistic, sports, and advertising industry. It’s good that my grandpa didn’t know it, and I was driving a tractor at 14, and a Fiat 126p at 16 – on the country roads. Today, do you know any 16-year-old kid who knows how to drive a car? It was once a common view, but today it is rather an endangered species.
One more interesting phenomenon was observed. In the phase of extinction, the rodents literally fought for access to one of the eight feeders. When seven of the feeders were free, the animals still fought for the remaining eighth feeder. The same with humans. Instead of adjusting to the situation and moving to another feeder, they force others to use taxes to fund unprofitable sectors.
The real problem occurs when there are no feeders in the country, and the youth doesn’t know how to create new ones. In my hometown, Jędrzejów, someone hung a banner “Jędrzejów – the new job market” (Jędrzejów nowym rynkiem pracy). As if this banner could change something. Certainly, the point is to transfer some money from the city budget to the banner’s owner, so that this owner won’t advertise the rivals in the forthcoming election, and, what is more, he will lower the price because of the Polish restrictions concerning the amount of money that may be spent on a pre-election campaign. And we are having the election in a few months.
Nonetheless, the case with casting a spell on the job market in Jędrzejów reminds me of an African shaman who taught that it is enough to put an aspirin between one’s knees and have sex with a virgin to cure oneself of AIDS. It may seem ridiculous to us, but since this shaman became quite popular, over one third of girls in RSA were raped at least once before their 18th birthday. Even ridiculous ideas have their consequences.
The banner in Jędrzejów is nothing in comparison with what Marxism has done in the 20th century. For the creators of this banner, Marx was probably a paragon, because he was so good at putting spells on reality that millions of “low income people” came to believe in rubbish and began economically raping the virgins and putting taxes on them, so that budding companies couldn’t enter the adult phase.
Marx has engraved communism so deeply on the societies’ brains that every revolution or separatist attempt makes use of the communist slogans. In Donbass, when colonel Bolotov claimed the independence of the Lugansk People’s Republic, he did it with a monument of Lenin in the background. A similar situation took place in Scotland. Even though Marxist shamanism is not that strong there, it is nonetheless worth pointing out that the Scottish people want their country to be more social, based on the Scandinavian model, and almost 80% of them support the European Union! If the Scottish people stepped out of the United Kingdom, the referendum planned for 2017 concerning the UK’s resignation from the EU would definitely end up as a success. But otherwise, UK’s resignation is not that certain.
Separatist movements across the globe grow in strength, and I don’t know what to think about it yet. Certainly, the ideal is the world of the millions of Liechtensteins. However, the problem is that these movements, without any exceptions, resemble more the French Revolution with dozens of African shamans as their leaders, than the American Revolution under the banner of freedom.
Look what a text a person can construct, when he just wanted to write about LSE.
This is it for today. And I invite all of you to MJM (Myśleć jak milionerzy) in Warsaw this Saturday. I don’t know if you remember how a few months ago I was complaining here a bit about some silly people. I think this trend is changing. Hopefully, it is changing for good. Jacek, who organises the event is doing a really great job. As a classic used to say, “I love it when a plan comes together”. See you.
- Feb 2014
- Feb 2014