LENZ: Important Thoughts, Financial and Economic Advice
Posted by alex in Financial Column, George Lenz at 4:21 pm | 
Permanent Link
By George Lenz
I was asked by a local businessman, what kind of economic system is proposed by nationalists. I answered, that it is national-social free enterprise. He was greatly surprised, having received an economic education he has never hear such a term, and asked for clarification. I explained it to him, and decided to dwell on this, since it looks like the modern nationalist economic doctrines are not largely known.
A national economic system entails that every economic decision is made with the understanding and weighting its consequences for the well-being of the whole volk. For example, the globalistic capitalism is promoting free-trade policies, which result in increase in mean wealth, coupled with rising unemployment and dependence. The appropriate policy for a national economic system would be a welfare trade policy, which results in increase of median wealth, coupled with rising employment and independence. Speaking in purely economic terms the welfare trade policy is the second-best solution in short term, yet the best solution in the long term, because in the case of free-trade, the short-term increase in economic efficiency is more than offset by increase in social costs of restructuring.
A social (not socialist) economic doctrine entails that every economic decision that is made is just. Justice in the economic sphere entails that everyone, who lives on the territory of a particular state would survive and get his share of the created wealth, though his share may neither be equal to the share of others, nor especially big one. An example of social economic policy is negative income tax: it makes sure that every White who is willing to survive would get a monthly income sufficient for basic foods, clothing and bed. The negative income tax is neither wasteful, since a nationalist state does not conduct additional social programs, not socialist, for the money paid by the state does not allow for extras and is a good stimulus to get a job.
Free enterprise entails that each economic decision can be made free from outside interference. A nationalist state is uninterested in protecting fools from their mistakes, or mandating how a product or service should be created. It may require the full disclosure of information regarding a particular product, like cigarettes, or mandate a particular addition to a product, if inexpensive and serving to advance a natural right, like safety belts in cars, yet it will never demand that drivers are to fasten safe belts, or that smokers are not to smoke or are to smoke only in special places. Free enterprise is all about economic freedom, and that also means freedom from excessively large economic entities that by their sheer size restrain it. So under modern free enterprise any business that has more than 5% of sales in a particular market for a good or service is broken into smaller businesses, each having nor more than 3% of sales of the good or service in question. Thus on the one hand, successful businessmen are not legally persecuted or even jailed under excessively stringent antitrust laws, which leaves these creative individuals free in their wealth creating activities, and at the same time the markets are much freer and competitive than those under globalistic capitalism. That is the essence of the national-social free enterprise.
A good place to practice it is one’s own business or life. Ask yourself: am a national enough? Does my job contribute to the well-being of my Volk and Race; am I producing a valuable product or service? Or perhaps I got a lousy job selling Asian junk, or fraudulent credit derivatives or usurious consumer or credit-card loans, living off White folks’ sweat? If so, do yourself a favor, get a decent job, and integrate your interest in the overall interest of the Volk and Race: it is not that difficult.
The next question to ask is: am a social enough? Do I pay my workers a decent wage, he and his family can leave on? Or to put a question otherwise, am I paid a decent job? If not, perhaps you should quit and start something on your own, leaving the globalistic capitalist exploiter empty-handed. Another question to ask is: am I socialist? Do I give my worker healthcare benefits, they are not entitled to, because healthcare is worker’s own business? If so, cancel them outright. Or otherwise put, do I get healthcare benefits from my company? If so refuse them, it’s a painful thing to do, yet it does not create false expectations, and you would learn to successfully manage your healthcare on your own, before others would have to learn themselves the hard way.
The last question to ask: am I a free enterpriser? Do I support local small- and medium-sized business by speaking out for their interests, and refusing to budge? Do I vote for socialist democrats or neoconservative republicans, instead for voting for Constitution party USA or its European analogues? If I am a small businessman, do I network and support others on this proud road to success. There are many options to make an impact, one of them are patriotic issue organizations like National Alliance, American Renaissance John Birch Society or Freedom Force. Join them; let’s make American business free again.
* * *
The DJIA is going up, pumped up by ever increasing FRS money printing: the current value is 12 303 vs. the intrinsic value 6 850, or by nearly two times. The stock bubble has achieved epic proportions and is waiting to be busted, bringing the whole U. S. economy with it. I am looking into IBM: the current valuations are quite reasonable, the current value 93.6 vs. the intrinsic value 107.6.
4 December, 2006 at 6:27 pm
An example of social economic policy is negative income tax: it makes sure that every White who is willing to survive would get a monthly income sufficient for basic foods, clothing and bed.
Millions of people would love to be parasites and live off others. Good idea. Ever heard of inflation, by the way?
So under modern free enterprise any business that has more than 5% of sales in a particular market for a good or service is broken into smaller businesses,
Because of course, being successful is bad. According to Marxist thought – which Lenz here obviously has swallowed – noone is better than anyone else, at anything. So if you get rich, you must be evil – how else could you get rich? You cannot make more money by being more valuable! And this is then applied to companies as well. The people will suffer when a good business is destroyed, but hey, they are spared the evil of buying from a corporation with more than 5 percent of the market share!
Do I vote for socialist democrats or neoconservative republicans, instead for voting for Constitution party USA or its European analogues? If I am a small businessman, do I network and support others on this proud road to success. There are many options to make an impact, one of them are patriotic issue organizations like National Alliance, American Renaissance John Birch Society or Freedom Force. Join them; let’s make American business free again.
That’s a list of sissies. And by the way, the Constitution Party doesn’t have any European analogues. You have analogues to the Democrats (social democrats), Republicans, and to nationalists, but a party obsessing over the Constitution as if that would solve anything is an anomaly.
4 December, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Of course, the problem with allowing people to become excessively rich is 1) they begin to become a drain on the system and volk, and 2) they often use their wealth explicitly against the volk-interest. Look at gates, that P.O.S. is using his ill-gotten gains to import coloreds and sustain their birthrates. And I think there is defintitely something to be said about worthless athletes white and colored alike, making millions while people doing productive and progressive work make peanuts.
4 December, 2006 at 10:49 pm
The way forward will be by “liberating” non multi-national business. That’s how we’ll be funded.
4 December, 2006 at 11:29 pm
George Lenz wrote: …Do I give my worker healthcare benefits, they are not entitled to, because healthcare is worker’s own business? If so, cancel them outright. Or otherwise put, do I get healthcare benefits from my company? If so refuse them, it’s a painful thing to do, yet it does not create false expectations, and you would learn to successfully manage your healthcare on your own, before others would have to learn themselves the hard way.
…….
George, I hope you are not a Germanic. ;) ….a half way decent health insurance policy for a White man with one or two dependents costs $600 to $800 dollars a month…that ain’t cheap! And the costs of health insurance are going up every year.
Maybe, you are a young single fellow in his early 20’s. Are you? I hope so.
5 December, 2006 at 5:01 am
2 Carpenter
“Millions of people would love to be parasites and live off others. Good idea. Ever heard of inflation, by the way?”
I did a study on impacts of negative income tax for the budget outlays and economic performance of the U. S. and selected European countries.
Basically, to put all FY 2005 U. S. non-working population (145 mln.) on maximum negative income tax (3000 USD per year per person) would cost 435 bln USD or 2.5 times less than the FY 2005 U. S. social spending combined. Using a more realistic set of assumptions puts the maximum cost estimate of negative income tax at 270 bln USD or 4 time less than the FY 2005 U. S. social spendings. And given it’s not easy to live on 3000 USD per year, they’d get a potent stimulus to get a job, while having their basic needs covered.
“Because of course, being successful is bad. According to Marxist thought – which Lenz here obviously has swallowed – noone is better than anyone else, at anything. So if you get rich, you must be evil – how else could you get rich? You cannot make more money by being more valuable! And this is then applied to companies as well. The people will suffer when a good business is destroyed, but hey, they are spared the evil of buying from a corporation with more than 5 percent of the market share!’
What an unreasonable statement! The rich would simply change the way they make money: they would develop and bring to stock market smaller companies, so instead of one big monster like IBM, there would be 40 smaller companies, fiercely competing with each other, and providing customers with cheaper and better products and services. No business would be destroyed, but much more businesses would be created and would survive, dispersing economic power around.
“That’s a list of sissies. And by the way, the Constitution Party doesn’t have any European analogues. You have analogues to the Democrats (social democrats), Republicans, and to nationalists, but a party obsessing over the Constitution as if that would solve anything is an anomaly”.
National Alliance is no sissies As for others they are doing a good job of solving specific problems, even though they don’t name the jew. Things would be much better under Constitution Party U. S., then under present set of morons.
5 December, 2006 at 5:11 am
2 Angle
I wouldn’t respectfully agree with you: we need rich, very rich and obsene rich, these guys provide necessary capital and often knew how to use it in the best possible way. What we don’t need however, is that this capital provide excessive economic and political power, threatening competition: a here the entirely new set of rules is needed.
5 December, 2006 at 5:18 am
2 Olde Dutch
“George, I hope you are not a Germanic. ;)”
You hope wrong
“a half way decent health insurance policy for a White man with one or two dependents costs $600 to $800 dollars a month…that ain’t cheap! And the costs of health insurance are going up every year”.
I don’t talk private health insurance. I talk finding a physician or a private clinic and paying him out of pocket for your health expences. Then the middle guy is cut from the equation, and only the truly necessary healthcare is consumed.
‘Maybe, you are a young single fellow in his early 20’s. Are you? I hope so”.
In my 20s, but not single. I do hold a full health insurance, yet I prefer to pay for my healthcare out-of-pocket, and go only to private physicians. Results: I haven’t been to the doctor more than two times a year for ten years already, since the last illness, and they tell me I am much healthier, than the other young men they examine.
5 December, 2006 at 10:01 am
ftdw wrote: I do hold a full health insurance, yet I prefer to pay for my healthcare out-of-pocket,
———–
Well, you hold full health insurance, which is smart!
Sure, if you have a pal who is an md in private practice, and you have the flu, and your pal the md will take $60 bucks cash, which will cost you less than your deductible/co-pay, then why not. If you don’t have a pal who is an md, or you have something more serious than the flu—your screwed.
Md’s who are locked into clinics’ can’t do deals. Maybe, if your their 1st cousin? ;)
Btw, today a wide spectrum anti-biotic will cost you $140 dollars for 8 or 9 pills in a pack without a drug benefit to your health insurance.
5 December, 2006 at 11:23 am
So bridgemakers would NOT be required to provide handrails, and each person walking over the bridge is responsible for somehow securing his footing himself. Some would slip and fall, but most would reach the other side safely, and the government is NOT responsible for those who fell? This is sheer stupidity.
If a person envisions a new business (say rolling weeds in paper that you burn and draw the smoke into your lungs – for pleasure), the government has NO interest in approving, or disapproving, the enterprise – nevermind this particular weed might be both addictive and permanently destructive of one’s health – right? This is also stupidity – the whole reason for having a government is to provide an environemnt in which people can live and work without having to check out every possible hidden danger lurking – the very FIRST thing any government of men should do is CLEAR THE LAND OF DANGERS, both seen and unseen, as best can be done reasonably. If a person wants to start a business selling spirits, it is in the interest of the “volk” to have a government agency confirm (for the public) that the spririts are not poisonous, and also provide a reasonble guidline as to what quantities of the spirits are harmless to an average person’s health.
Why re-invent the wheel? Check out the economic guidelines of the 3rd reich, adjust for the particular aspects of the USA land mass and people, and go from there – they seem to have gotten it right.
Thalidomide hit the germans AFTER the 3rd reich was destroyed – would that have happened under their governance? A good question and I think we all know the answer.
8 December, 2006 at 6:37 pm
As usual, the National Socialist moment, with nothing to interfere with the creative genius of Western Man, provides the guidance we need.
One, the corporation exists to do what it does here; however, the “fringe benefits” are treated as a mutual responsibility. Thus, for instance, access to health care, as currently structured, is a cost that will lead to the dramatic restructuring of the Big 2.5 American car manufacturers. This could have been avoided by providing affordable health care insurance in a system that removes many of the intermediaries, while deskilling many of the current functions. For example, bluntly, many times, you do not really NEED to see a physician; a physician’s assistance, supervising allied health personnel (medics, in effect), can easily handle many of the functions handled by VERY EXPENSIVE emergency rooms. The cost of this common responsibility can be funded by a combination of copays, and a surcharge on gasoline.
Two, cooperatives and credit unions can do much of what the corporate forms currently perform; as well, special purpose entities, such as llc’s, limited partnerships, and family limited partnerships, would be available for special needs. Of singular importance, insurance – the great intangible that is controlled by the Goddamn JEWS, would be an onshore system.
Three, this presents the alternative of a new taxation structure; for instance, for years the Conservatives, Libertarians, and Patriots have spoken against the income tax as being inherently unconstitutional. Their most common proposal, the so-called “flat tax” touted by Neil Bortz, would create a CONSTITUTIONAL foundation for a de facto national income tax.
A possible NS alternative would be something like an alternative minimum tax, in the form of a flat tax on CORPORATE purchases; just as all corporations in America must pay a 15% flat tax on earned income for workers for Social Security, why shouldn’t they pay a flat tax on their PURCHASES? Easy to collect, easy to administer, and it would replace the current corporate tax system in its entirety.
Currently, the virtually unlimited residential interest deduction has moved vast resources from productivity, to essentially a passive investment whose valuation pretty much controls the limits of municipal spending. This subsidizes the non-productive financial sector of the economy to a remarkable degree.
Why not replace THAT deduction with a deduction of mortgage PRINCIPLE up to the value of the house, and apply this to solely to a primary residence?
An obvious next step is the electrification of transportation, but I will deal with this issue at a later time.
These ideas are offered as filling in the blanks of issues mentioned peripherally, but not fleshed out, in Harold Covington’s Northwest Trilogy series of books; this is what I like about VNN, Peter Shank, and even Bill White’s organization – we are taking the responsibility to not be bound by the dead hand of the ideas of the past, which have served only to distort the economy away from productivity and growth, making the economy the handmaiden of the financiers, instead of the much-to-be-preferred subordination of finance, to the public good, in service to the private interests of the smaller business, and the smaller-scale family supported farms.
New America
An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!
9 December, 2006 at 9:21 pm
I subscribe to a lot of mags, and used to subscribe to a lot more.
Guess what, if The New AMerican wasnt already totally Zionist, it sure is now.