Gary North has indeed, incorrectly predicted the Y2K meltdown. More than that, he is heavily into the Bible and matters connected to it. His "Economic Commentary on the Bible" supposedly establishes that capitalism is suggested by the Bible, while socialism is totally against it. He has admitted his own wrongs on Y2K, and had mentioned that he owes his views in large part to R.J. Rushdooney, numerous times.


I do not read Gary North on religious matters. What I like about him is specifcally his view on economics. Whether it is "gloom and doom" or "full ahead", is inconsequential to me, as long as I agree with the reasoning behind the analysis.

I also do not connect my economic analysis in any way with any religious movements, be they Christian or Calvinist. All I want is the unrestricted (beyond the constitutional constraint) capitalism, and freedom to follow any faith one may desire to follow.


But, enough with disclaimers, let us get to the case in point:



In unrestrained capitalism, such is absolutely impossible. First, because there can be no compulsory social security fund. Secondly, because it is a characteristic of socialist government, to bail out anyone. In unrestricted capitalism? AIG board of directors would be in a debtors prison by now.



If you suggest that with people over 55 going homeless, there is going to be less available capital, then I agree. And we can thank the government for this disaster.

However, if you suggest that there is any value whatsoever in government regulated and backed funds to a business, then I could not disagree more. First, it doesn't matter where the funds are parked, as long as they exist. They will be available as a capital. Secondly, I place no value whatsoever on business, if it means robbing anyone else to support it. I believe everyone should be equal, and no one's funds should be collected by perpetrating a scam, and held for depreciation, even if it is in order to provide for young entrepreneurs.



Contrary to your statement, it is only the government, that creates the business cycle, as it exists today. The government free of constitutional restraints is a sole cause of all instability.


I call it socialism, because this is what a society where no one has money is. We don't have money since 1933. More than that, from 1933 till late sixties, it was illegal for an American to have money.

I guess I never trust ideologues who talk out of both sides of their mouths, be they liberal or conservative. In as much as Calvinism is about predestination and the affirmation of the Elect, I see somone who tries to marry that to Capitalism, a system where ability alone is supposedly the determining factor that one's station in life is indexed upon as being totally conflicted and trapped in a conumdrum of their own device. That North was spectactularly wrong about Y2K establishes him in my mind as a wannabe prophet who has to do a little more work on his premises.





First off, Capitalism isn't some force of nature, it's a human invention-- and as such, falls prey to all the ancient human foibles like greed, laziness and immorality. At its best, it _can_ be a vehicle for enlightened self-interest, at worst a tool for establishing hegemonic domination of the masses by those same Elect--the same group for which people like Dr. North front.

Too often it devolves into plutocracy, where the glass slipper is shoehorned onto one of the sisters who is far less pure of heart. This takes the forms of rentseeking and monopolists attempting to smuggle a corner on a free market under its banner. It's the mindset that goads people like that chap at Microsoft to say "We at Microsoft just went our fair share of the market, and we feel that fair share is 100%".






No, I said that the government has to be a backstop and a buffer against the mayhem sometimes unleashed by people who think capitalism is a fertilizer that allows trees to grow into heaven. THOSE are the people who create business cycles for the government to unravel. I find it quaint that you so mistrust the government when you KNOW the Ken Lays of the world are as common as pickpockets at public hangings.

By inferring that Social Security is a socialist theft, you're going full bore against the wisdom of the American people who have said time after time in no uncertain terms that they want something a little more substantial than jingles on the tee vee for the Flavor of the Month investment vendor. They want the Full Faith and Credit of The Government of the United States of America standing behind the deposits in the banks and at least a bare minimum of their retirement money. Nothing else has stood the test of time like it has. But don't believe me, ask people like Rick Santorum who flushed his political career down the toilet by taking Dr. North's approach.

Capitalism may be a pretty impressive sock puppet, but it's only as reliable as the grasping hand it cloaks.

-Kerry O.

I disagree entirely, on all points.

That's certainly you're prerogative. It's mine to make known independently verifiable facts about this guy's track record and worldview.

Re. the Y2K affair, from Alternet.com:




You said we should ignore North's religious extremism. How can we when he's said things like this:



Or how about his rationalization for a Taliban-like suggestion that gays and unbelievers deserve to be stoned because:



Nor, I guess, is it very sporting of me to reveal at this point in the 'debate' that even some of his allies, along with people who think he's a whacko, have called him 'Scary Gary'.

So, do you have a rebuttal based on any kind of facts as to why we should take Gary North seriously, given some of the really off-the-wall things he's said and done?

Because saying "I disagree with you entirely, on all points" probably isn't going to cut it.

But hey-- it's your thread to abandon when the heat gets turned up a bit. :)


-Kerry O.

More Gary North quotes:

"What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a strategy for dominion."

"This is God's world, not Satan's. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians."

"Nevertheless, this one fact should be apparent: turning the other cheek is a bribe. It is a valid form of action for only so long as the Christian is impotent politically or militarily."


"Jesus Christ is our supreme commander, but He operates only through His word, which is unquestionably a training manual. However, He has many interpreters, and few people see the Bible as a true training manual."

"There is only one Bride; God is not a bigamist. He took no gentile wife under the Old Covenant, and He will not accept a pale imitation of Old Covenant Israel - modern Judaism - as His wife in the future.”

"The fifth and by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan. Stoning is therefore integral to the commandment against murder.”


"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.”

This one's especially for you, NoGames, since you think that the North can compartmentalize his religion against his economic policies:

"When men see how relevant the ten commandments are for economics, they should gain new respect for the importance of the laws of God for all of life, but especially for the life of dominion man, the man redeemed by grace through faith in the one true Dominion Man, Jesus Christ.”

-Kerry O.

You're way into ad hominem with this. I hope you see what it does to the quality of your argument.

I am saying it again, what difference does it make to me, what kind of faith is his? He could be muslim (since these are the most hated now), and it wouldn't make a dent in what he says on economics.


Strictly speaking, even the track record matters not at all,for those interested in thinking about the process, and not just in a conclusion.

I, am not interested in anybody's conclusions. I make them myself. Therefore, it matters not to me if North is saying how he sees 2+2 equals 4. I only want to see how he goes about adding, nothing more. Even if on all prior occasions, he was saying that it would equal 5.

If one is looking for a prophet, then your approach would make sense.

To me, it matters not what his faith is or what does he do in his bedroom.

I think anyone reading my posts, can see that I respect no authority. Therefore, (and it shows) I care not for anyone track record, or what else they do in life, if what they are saying makes no sense.

In his article, North mentions not any of his religious convictions. He does not imply that his logic is right, because of his "track record".

All he presents, are his thoughts, that anyone can examine to be found true or lacking reason.

Hey, at lest I _made_ an argument instead of saying "I disagree entirely, with all your points."

Somehow, I don't think pointing out to a family who has their heart set on a pit bull that pit bulls are notorious for turning on children is an ad hominem against pit bulls.





Well then, there's a figure in last century's history that got all the trains running on time who also had a penchant for world dominion. He too used economics as a means to an end.




There's a very good reason why Gary North's soapbox is a fringe website and his books appeal to a small, albeit ardent, minority. It's called 'peer review', where everybody's arguments, theories and track record are looked at and savaged with falsification. I suspect North's religious mania casts him as a crypto-fascist who can't seperate the two as you claim to be able to do.



And 'all' I presented were thoughts from the proverbial horse's mouth that show beyond a reasonable doubt North is either unable or unwilling to seperate the two as you say you do. I suspect he knows he'd pay a penalty were he to base all his theories on objectivity divorced from pandering to religious mania. To me, that makes him unreliable and not worth my time.

Footnote: I knew someone who went on a Gary-North-like crusade vis-a-vis the Gold Standard and how because we weren't on it any longer, he didn't owe any taxes because he hadn't received any 'legal' income. He caused his family unreal hardship, lost everything he owned but still stubbornly refused to give up. He finally committed suicide.

-Kerry O.

Okay, hold that thought:



Not exactly the epitome of reasoned conclusions, is it?

-Kerry O.