Hirsi Ali: “Regering ritselt in achterkamertjes en Parlement is gewetenloos en zwak”

Hallo Hub, ik ga even zeuren over het werkwoord ‘plegen’.

Als het een misdaad (bijvoorbeeld) betreft is de verleden tijd ‘pleegde’. Bij ‘iets gewoon zijn’ daarentegen is de verleden tijd ‘placht’.

Dank voor uw aandacht.

[1] Frits is duidelijk ook in de koninklijke menage verwekt en geboren en gaat hie even oh-en over de (volgens hem onjuiste) manier dat Hub hem de pindas toedient.

Wat een narrrrrow minded geloel … En wat die AHA betreft, het is en blijft een laagstaande en niet al te snuggere huurlinge, oplichtster, parasiet en nog veel erger.

Want nog zal zij niet willen weten welk een dodelijk verraad Thorbecke op het Nederlandse volk heeft gepleegd.

[2] Inderdaad, ACP. Mijn bedoeling was om deze gelegenheid aan te grijpen een heimelijk ‘Oranje boven!’ te exclameren. Er is werkelijk niets dat u ontgaat. Leve de koningin! (…)

[3]

Waarom nu in het GENIEP … Ranja boven geroepen? Een grote meerderheid van de hersenloze wurmen zijn hier immers zwaar VOOR de monarchie … Men weet niet beter. Dat zijn de feiten.

En nu de machthebbers ook nog voor een multikulse onderklasse hebben gezorgd is men immers helemaal … de man … Of niets soms?

laten we Hirsi een gratis abonnement op de Vrijspreker aanbieden….

[2] Moet je niet eerst zelf snugger zijn voordat je iemand anders "niet al te snugger" kunt noemen?

ik zit even te denken in welke denktank Hirsi Ali ook al weer zat….het gezegde ‘wiens brood men eet, diens woord men spreekt’ gaat bij haar wel zeer geregeld op. Van sociaal-democratisch naar liberaal naar neo-conservatief (?) naar …. ?
Dit gezegd hebbende, ben ik toch blij dat zij uiteindelijk op het rechte pad dreigt te komen.

I have been following this blog for quite some time. However, I must admit that I am really dissapointed with both the discussions on this blog and the poorly written books by your all-time favourite Ms. A. Rand.

I recently started to wonder who of you studied and on what level… Moreover, I really would love to know who of you travelled in developing countries. Who of you has visited Russia, South- East Asia? Both these territories financially collapsed after the implementation of the IMF’s neo-liberal policies (which YOU must be familiar with).

I really wonder, who of you read beyond Rand and started in more "intellectual readings". If I must give one tip, look into Deleuze’s critique to both your liberal dogmas and to your life-time opponent Marx.

Please start to use your brain as your liberal anarchism brought nothing to the world. Name me one country that has developed under your ideal (no it was not the US, no it was not Great Britain, nor has it been Germany). Know your history and recognize for once the importance of a strong state.

SD

Ps. Sorry, I am Italian and dont dare to write Dutch, because all you would do is correcting me!

[8]

Who said: "" Ps. Sorry, I am Italian and dont dare to write Dutch, because all you would do is correcting me!""

You KNOW the narrow minded Dutchies and their SICK mentality … don’t you. Want zelf spreekt men tot in de hoogste kringen vaak uiterst GEBREKKIG Engels, Frans en Duits. Laat staan Italiaans of Spaans.

Maar men heeft "doorgeleerd" en woont in een "ontwikkeld" land …

Zum kotzen …

[7] Zo de wind waait, waait mijn jasje.
En daar kun je best rijk en beroemd mee worden.
Anne

[7] Zo de wind waait, waait mijn jasje.
En daar kun je best rijk en beroemd mee worden.
Anne

[8] Vertaal ‘neo-liberal’ eens in het Nederlands, niet letterlijk maar contextueel. Neo-sociaal-democratisch. Neo-liberal is effectief gezien de ideologie die vanuit de niet plaatsgevonden 3e Internationale in het leven geroepen is. Ik zie niet hoe sociaal-constructivisme in de zin van het creëren van een mondiale vrije markt, het irrationele geloof in de werking van het marktmechanisme (en dus niet in de onderliggende waarden als eigendomsrecht etc.), en vergaande buitenlandbeleid van staten en supranationale organisaties te maken heeft met het Objectivisme van Rand. (Noch met de doctrines van de meeste libertariërs die meestal qua econmische theorie verwijzen naar de Oostenrijkers).

[8] "Who of you has visited Russia, South- East Asia? Both these territories financially collapsed after the implementation of the IMF’s neo-liberal policies"

Ik denk dat je hier een begin maakt om het te begrijpen. Beide gevallen ploften in elkaar vanwege de "sterke" staat.

Een goed boek om te lezen is "Capitalism" vam George Reisman.Maar misschien kun je beter beginnen met "The road to servdom" van Friedrich Hayek.

[8] Wél de VS, wél UK, wél Duitsland. Deze landen zijn rijk geworden door een (relatief) vrije markt en Duitsland door na de oorlog de lonen en prijzen vrij te geven.

Je hebt gelijk dat geen enkel land het libertarische ideaal heeft gekend, maar feit is dat meer overheidsinterventie leidt tot meer armoede. Waarom schieten China en India nu pas uit de startblokken? Omdat hun overheden de teugels eindelijk iets laten vieren.

Forget Ayn Rand; Lees Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, Milton Friedman, David Friedman en andere filosofen/economen van de Oostenrijkse School. Zij komen met feiten en cijfers, niet met socialistische sprookjes.

[6]

Nee … anders had je nooit geweten dat Einstein veel kluger was … Nou dan?

[8] [14] First of all, I agree with Jozef. You have to start reading Human action of Ludwig von Mises, The road to serfdom from Friedricht Hayek, America’s great depression from Murray Rothbard, together with the Wealth of Nations from Adam Smith and Free to Choose from Milton Friedman. I agree with SD the IMF is an evil organization together with the World Bank in perpetuating poverty. The fiat money they produce on which their usury interest rates are impovering nations worldwide. Both Russia and Argentina have kicked them out and rightly so. When poor countries can export their produce uninhibited to the western world, then they will be the first to benefit from this free trade. At the moment free trade does not exist and is being hampered by western government policies and protectionism.

[8] For argument sake, Ayn Rand was a philospher and not an economist. I still like her philosophy, because it is morally sound. The only problem is how to implement it in an unfree world.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali vandaag in de Volkskrant: appeasement van islamfascisten os naïef en gevaarlijk.
Deze keer zonder aanhalingstekens die wel door de redactie werden gebruikt, kennelijk om de uitspraken van A.H.A. af te zwakken in de trant van: het valt allemaal wel mee.
Maar de gevaarlijkste appeaser dreigt MP van dit land te worden, tenminste, als hij op 22-11 a.s. als winnaar uit de bus komt.
Want het was wouter bos die eerder uitkraamde dat de islam bij Nederland hoort. Maar dat zullen de meesten wel weer vergeten zijn.

[16]

Zeg dat tegen het menselijke wrakhout in de shitsjiale vangnetten …

[13]

Russia:

You make the mistake of confusing a strong with a highly corrupt state…

Russia was (and is still) not a strong state.

Stop reading the old literature by Lipton, Sachs and all all those other free laissez fairs practitioners. Their time was short-lived during the 1990s and if you read carefully they all have converted into gradualism and state intervention (eg. their recent articles on China).

For truth about Russia read Freeland (sale of the century), maybe even some later later Sachs articles, Nolan (his 1995 book) or Stiglitz (the famous and populist "globalisation and its dicontents").

For South East Asia please read Chang (Kicking away the latter/ reclaiming development etc) or Henderson (various publications).

Final note, why do you think China is so careful liberalising their market (even though they are now facing a big financial crisis with the entrance of foreign banks)?

Please get your facts straight, nobody profits from neo-liberalism. Its all short -term thinking and incredible poisonous for EVERY state and society.

Mark my words that the US will soon witness a financial collapse, due to its consumerism (1 trillion debt….?). Who knows what will happen then to the already fragile international monetary system (try to read Harvey)?

cheers

S.D.

[12]

In clear, brief and cohesive words (hopefully):

Neo-liberalism is born in the 1970 and the direct result of Nixon’s decision to float the dollar (after pressure in the expensive Vietnam War).

It is the final step from the Keynesian tradition to a return to ultra neo- classical all round commodification or perhaps as Harvey (2003) describes the "financialisation of everything" (i.e. Money written in the eyes of God). This form of ultra laissez fairism in combination with high- speed communication services have made the world more complex and vulnerable than ever before. There have been more financial crises than in any other moment in history (both in developed and Less Developed Countries). The system is not controllable, as stagnation equals slowdown equals depression equals recession, etc. Profits need to circulate (Smith) and colonize new territories (not by definition territorialised).

The similarity with Rand should now be fairly easy to comprehend. Individualism has gained the upperhand, Nietsche’s worst nightmare has come true. Endless accumulation of capital has gone hand in hand with individualism. Godless and fearless money obsessed creatures have taken over an apparatus of power, which enables them to fulfil the strongest hunger for self- recognition (or what you defined as objectivism). The latter feeds the endless (?) accumulation of profit in the most bizar ways (commodification of God/ nature/ feelings/ culture etc).

For more information, maybe try Harvey, Arreghi or Wallerstein. Rand (or the Chicago boys and Von Hayek) are NOT academic literature, as there is NO critical qualitative analysis (solely quantitive). Moreover, having studied in Oxford I can say all the above neo-classical authors are dead in the upper-scale university’s lectures, as they contain no truth at all.

My opinion. Cheers

S.D.

[14] Wrong! The history of Germany is based on piracy of English property right in the 19th century (Chang: Reclaiming development/ kicking away the latter and many other authors).

US no, The US was very protectionary as they avoided FDI (Foreign Direct Investment). Foreigner were for example not allowed to have their own bank, own land and were in fact restricted to open firms untill the 20st centurty! Even now, there is the super 301 clause in the WTO legal apperatus, which gives the US the chance to overrule the WTO IF it acts against US interest. Also see the MFA (multi Fiber Agreement with China, which are a big joke… Please verify your facts!

Your second point. China has developed against the odds that is true, but the country has come from very far (i.e. brutal communism, civil war etc). Though that is not the point, the point is that 50 percent of GDP is FDI. Every normal POLITICAL economist should know that, that is very dangerous. The question is thus why China has so much FDI (its middle class is still very small, thus not profitable for foreign companies to invest). The reason is explained and criticised by two neo-classical (!!)economist: (Minxim Pei and Chang, latter holds a high position at the IMF (!))). Both authors and with them an increasing number of others, argue that China has been holding back its own domestic class. Why? because it is afraid of Fukuyama scenario of democracy (i.e. Loss of power for the CCP (China Communist Party). The high level of foreign influence in the post Deng Xioping’s Southern Tour (1992), has created incredible pressure on China’s socio- economic and socio- political climate (i.e. Gini coefficient is the world’s highest in simple words: China has the most unequeal income distribution in the world). Breslin and Gordan Chang (coming collapse of China) predict both a massive financial collapse with the entrance of foreign banks in China.

India has a simular story, please get yourself informed. Facts, sources and real literature.

Friedman, the Chicago boys. Two words: remember Chili????? I hope you are joking when you call Mises, Rothbard, Milton Friedman, David Friedman "filosofen/economen"… These are not academics and as I said earlier they fortunately have been abonded at the UK’s and US’ better universities. Finally "socialistische sprookjes", that sounds from somebody that did not even bother to go through structural/ contemporary or even traditional marxism. The art of knowing is understand and understanding comes from reading and listening.

That is my two pennies, cheers.

S.D.

[16] I did read all your sources in my undergraduate at Oxford (now doing a PhD, 3rd year). I suggest you try some post-modernism. I was actually surprised with the second paragraph of your comment and it took me by surprise. I left some comments earlier (to other people) and guess you can get my view.

I think free trade sounds like an utopia. Although that is not by definition bad, let me explain very breifly. There is no way the richer countries will ever open for cheaper products (i.e. MFA in the US and the EU’s agricultural embargo against Less Developed Countries in Africa). Moreover, if we look at the Asian model (especially Japan, Korea and maybe to a lesser extent Taiwan), we can see that those countries have industrialised similarly as the West. How? Being both protectionary for some time and lots of state interventions, which allowed them to grow national champions (such as Nissan, Acer, Kodak) etc. Then, after those companies are "matured" open the borders and let them swim free (i.e. free market as you call it).

Cheers,

S.D.

[9] Come on, I think you have a brilliant culture! I envy your openness and kind mentality. I think you are a great and very friendly people, really. That is what I know and tell my family back home.

Holland is not so bad, at least in my eyes.

[22] The fact that the US, UK and Germany didn’t have a complete liberal system but still gained wealth, doesn’t prove that a free market has negative effects. In my opinion it proves that free market has effects that are stronger than some oppressive rules. Without these rules, even more wealth could have been created.

I agree that there hasn’t been a 100% free market in the world (and unfortunately there probably never will be one), but there’s a clear connection between the level of economic freedom and wealth.

Your attitude towards thinkers of the Austrian school is quite annoying, because you discard their theory’s on the ground of authority. The fact that your professors at Oxford do not accept their accomplishments doesn’t mean that they’re wrong. On whose payroll are your professors? Could it be that they are less critical towards the system which nourishes them?

Hayek and Mises received Nobel prizes for their theory’s. Mises and Rothbard teached at universities. They wrote scientific books. In what way are they not academic? What’s your definition of academic? Accepting popular beliefs as absolute facts or regarding dissidents as non-academic?

Maybe you can answer a specific question: Have you read Hayek’s "Road to serfdom"? Can you point out the logical errors Hayek makes in this book? Saying that Hayek is no longer accepted by the academic world is not a valid answer.

[25] I meant: Hayek and Friedman received Nobel prizes…

Dear Jozef,

I am sorry to annoy you with my comments, however that is what some might call discussion.. It is funny that you start getting annoyed as this forum is labeled "vrijspreker"…

Your first paragraph misses any argument. Please inform yourself on the trade barriers in the 18th and 19th centuries, they were higher than they are today. Also, please read my other comments which stated that there is no way that a LCD can develop into a wealthy country (eg. check the recent experiences in South East- Asia)

If you would read beyond your neo-classical doctrines, I am sure you will find why I think different than you. Moreover, a nobel prize does not turn someone into a high standard academic. They are received in contemporary moments and are like fashion trends. Or do you really want to say Stiglitz deserved one?

Unfortunately, my university is not an exception to the rule. Neo-classial thinking has been abandoned now for years in both the UK and the US (already in the 1960s). However, it is still taught in business schools (are those academic?). What is most frustrating for me is that laissez fairist believe so much in the power of the invisible hand that it becomes obsessive. As I teach my undergrads: "there is no perfect formula for economic growth. It is funny that people at the IMF, WTO and WB now have begun to realize that too (try the famous article written by Kenny and Williamson (both working for the WB) for instance).

Lets face it we are witnessing a revival of post-modernism (in political, economic and social terms). Maybe it is time for you to start reading something else and finally realise that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. The arguments displayed in your short comment do not stand and are illustrative for a passive philosophy in rapidly changing enviroments.

In closing, I would like to repeat and remind you that economics should not be left to calculators, but instead should be analysed through a politico- economic lense (including culture, path- dependency etc).

Cheers and best of luck

S.D.

Ps. R u Jewish? Just curious, no bad intentions.

[27] Dear SD,
Again you don’t come up with arguments that blast the theories of the "Austrains". You can’t convince me just by mentioning that main stream economics has left their ideas. I already know that, but it hasn’t lead to my disapproval of Austrian economics.

About the trade barriers: Do you think the trade barriers lead to the economic succes of the UK and the US? Or could it be the fact that the national (intern) policy was less restrictive than today?

Let me say that I am in no way obsessed with the free market system and that I don’t believe in an absolute truth on a filosofical level. However on a practical level I’d like to mind my own business and I wish that to be possible for everyone. It frustrates me that people who are less competent in handling my business than me, are forcing me and my peers to leave parts of our lives to their responsibility.

You say I have to start reading "something" else to be able to realize my lust for freedom is outdated.
I can tell you that I read something else till my twenties: I left high-school as a socialist. Studying absolute science forced me to reconcider my stance, and I realized that it were mostly emotional arguments that made me a "lefty", while the facts and logic often point in the opposite direction.

Furthermore, it’s funny you mention that economics shouldn’t be left to calculators. This is exactly what the Austrians say: It is just too difficult to plan an economy. No matter how much you study the subject, you will never be able to make a free market more efficient by central planning. Nobody can spend your money more carefully than you, so leave alone somebody can spend the money of billions of individuals better than everyone of these individuals for themselves.

Finally, let’s suppose it is filosophically or moraly correct to abandon free trade: Who do you trust with the job of leading your economic life? Frankly, I don’t trust anyone with that job. In Holland, the ultimate mediocres get in the goverment. What is it in your country at the time? Corrupt businessman or the commies? I heard it was a close call.

BTW I’m not Jewish.

[28] Dear Jozef,

Thank you for your comment, it gave me more insights about both your background and way of thinking.

To answer some of your questions and to comment on your arguments:

"About the trade barriers: Do you think the trade barriers lead to the economic succes of the UK and the US? Or could it be the fact that the national (intern) policy was less restrictive than today?"

First statement; yes I do think so. History has proven that no country has managed to develop under free- market policies. Second statement; I think the state has a tremendous role in building a stable socio- economic climate. As soon as the latter is completed, free markets take over. However, there will always remain a risk of an overheated economy.

"You say I have to start reading "something" else to be able to realize my lust for freedom is outdated."

Freedom is to my definition not related to the ethos of "I can consume, thus I am". Freedom comes from our mind not from our money. At least that is what I think, and I therefore disagree in all facets with Fukuyama thesis in his "end of history". I think Negri and Hardt made a brilliant case with their book "empire" (kinda thick, but I highly recommend reading it), which shows that neo- liberalism in fact holds freedom back.

"I can tell you that I read something else till my twenties: I left high-school as a socialist. Studying absolute science forced me to reconcider my stance, and I realized that it were mostly emotional arguments that made me a "lefty", while the facts and logic often point in the opposite direction."

I dont think it is a simple matter of socialism versus neo- liberalism, as I said before there is no absolute truth. Every situation (economic and political) asks for another solution. There is no "one size fits all scenario".

"Furthermore, it’s funny you mention that economics shouldn’t be left to calculators. This is exactly what the Austrians say: It is just too difficult to plan an economy"

As I said now a couple of times, free trade in the end result imbalances countries. Look at China and the US, two countries which both hold free- trade policies but have enormous income inequalities and debt problems on the national level and on the regional level. Free trade (especially financial free trade) imbalances whole countries and sometimes even distorts developed states (i.e. for example look at what George Soros did with the English Pound in the 1990s). It is absurd that whole countries can collapse as a result of financial crashes in a split of a second. As a matter of fact global income inequality has risen from the onset of neo- liberalism (1971) to historically unprecenteded heights.

"No matter how much you study the subject, you will never be able to make a free market more efficient by central planning."

As I said there are so many ways in between. I personally favor a version of financial Keynesianism and selective free trade for FDI. Moreover, I believe that to some extent privatisation can have positive outcomes. But some services should never be privatised (eg. look at the bus system in Manchester, which is run by 6 companies with Polish bus drivers who cannot speak a word of English. Also, it is difficult (if not impossible) to visit places in the city which are not popular by the masses).

"What is it in your country at the time? "

I am in China, for fieldwork. You should analyse that country, corrupt dictatorial state with die- hard capitalist economy. Doomed to fail, mark my words.

Cheers,

S.D.

Ps. I will not be able to write long comments anymore, due to my work.

[29]
die … maar wat in de ruimte loelt …

"" … I am in China, for fieldwork. You should analyse that country, corrupt dictatorial state with die- hard capitalist economy. Doomed to fail, mark my words …""

Welnu, ik kom er al van af de tijd dat Deng daar het roer omgooide. En die Chinezen betalen via mijn (notabene) Rotterdamse raadslieden al die jaren prompt elke cent aan royalty uit dat ik van hun tegoed heb…

Edoch, wat voor "field work" S.D daar doet mag Joost weten … missionarissengeleur misschien? Maar van de Chinezen en hun mentaliteit heeft hij ondanks zijn fysieke aanwezigheid aldaar werkelluk helemaal geen kaas van gegeten. Dat is nogal evident.

Want als er GEBOREN en intuitieve kapitalisten zijn … dan zijn het wel de Chinezen. Het zit hun echt in de genes … Daarnaast bestaat in China en onder de Chinezen uiteindelijk geen gezag behalve dat van de voorvaderen en van de familie. Terwijl het communisme en het nasjionalisme eerder slechts kleine historische excursies zijn. Ook het bestaan en regiem van de feodale "warlords" van welleer moet eerder gezien worden binnen de context van een vrijwel onmetelijk land en ruimte. Men woonde daar niet boven op elkaar als in het middeleeuwse Europa. En als hij de Chinezen en de Chineze overheid "korrupt" vindt dan kan hij zich beter op de hoogte stellen van wat al eeuwenlang en nu nog nog in het tegenwoordige Pleuropa aan de hand is.

"Doomed to fall" my foot … En al zeker niet omdat de Chineesschrijvende volkeren de komende eeuw en langer MA DE VS ( met wie de chinezen overigens op persoonlijke basis zeer goed kunnen) de grootste wereldmacht zullen zijn …

Ben toch wel benieuwd hoe S.D. werkelijk aan de kost komt en wat tie echt weet…. En ook of deze "Italiaan" mij op z’n shitsjialistisch Hollands van op-de-man- spelen gaat beschuldigen, want dan weten ook gelijk wat voor vlees wij in de kuip hebben …