There Is Only ONE Peaceful Path Left To Avoid Destruction

[davsel]

From: Karl Denninger's "The Market Ticker" site: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=225405

There Is Only ONE Peaceful Path Left To Avoid Destruction

Folks, if you have read me recently you know that I've said that you are the problem and that the reason this is true is that you won't go on strike, you won't picket DC and refuse to leave until the government stops stealing from you and debasing the currency, you won't reduce your spending and income to only that which provides necessities, and most of you go on to justify your behavior with "my kids (and/or family) deserve what I can provide."

You're fools and I'm going to prove it.

Further, I'm going to prove -- by arithmetic -- that if you follow the above path you will destroy yourself along with your children and grandchildren.

Here's why.

"There were 108,592,000 people in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2011 who were recipients of one or more means-tested government benefit programs, the Census Bureau said in data released this week. Meanwhile, according to the Census Bureau, there were 101,716,000 people who worked full-time year round in 2011. That included both private-sector and government workers."

None of the people getting means-tested government benefits will ever vote to reduce them, nor vote for any politician that will reduce them.

But it's factually much worse than it first appears because federal government workers will not vote to fire themselves either, just as the 17th Amendment (ed: The worst thing to ever happen to this country) is inviolate because The Senate willnever vote to fire itself.

So we must in fact subtract 21,880,000 from the full-time worker count.

In other words you're outvoted by 36%.

Does it make sense yet? This is not a small margin and it cannot be politically reversed because the margins are too high. Were the skew relatively small (and it looks small until you subtract out federal workers) you could potentially do so, because some people won't vote and you could "motivate the base." But note that with the federal workers out, and we're not subtracting the State workers, which also exist on this same largesse, you can't get there because this means nearly 40% of those receiving such benefits would have to stay home when reductions are proposed, and they never will.

As such you cannot vote your way out of this.

You cannot politically organize your way out of this.

You can't do it in the Democrat Party and you can't do it in the Republican Party. Nor can you do it in a third party.

Every single person who argues otherwise is an idiot or worse, a fraudster (if they have run the numbers above.)

Delusions persist because people don't examine the facts in detail. I recognize that I participated in attempting to politically change things for far too long because I did not look, in detail, at the math.

But I can no longer make any logical argument that political activism is useful in any way, shape or form. It is a waste of energy, time and money that I can expend elsewhere on something that brings me more joy, rather than tilting at windmills.

There is only one remaining peaceful way to change things: Withdraw your consent and thus intentionally but peacefully and lawfully destabilize the underpinning of the government debt market, thereby denying the government the means to continue screwing you, your children and grandchildren irrespective of the vote count.

The only other choices remaining are consenting to your own economic death, along with that of your children and grandchildren, or violence.

If you claim that you will "get yours" for "your kids" (or your spouse, or just yourself) you're deluding yourself as the odds are that (1) you will fail and (2) even if you "succeed" the victory will be both temporary and pyrrhic as you cannot overcome the voting block deficiency.

In short, read this Ticker again in light of the above mathematical facts.

Then act, or not, but the math doesn't care if you agree with it or not.

[kidicarus13]

Thanks, now I need a drink or 3.

[osok-308]

Man, it's true. I feel like i just got a swift kick in the backside.

[Zundfolge]

The only flaw in his thinking is that 100% of people that receive any form of government assistance will always vote for larger government and/or against smaller government. The truth is that a LOT of Americans that receive small amounts of government assistance would still vote for small government conservatives and a sizable percentage of those that receive large amounts of government assistance don't vote at all (either out of apathy or due to felony convictions).

But other than that he's right, our best (but not only) bet at non-violent change in America is a general strike ... which is not likely to ever happen.

[dan512]

Every single person who argues otherwise is an idiot or worse, a fraudster (if they have run the numbers above.)

This pisses me off a little bit. Just because this guy can't think of any other possible solutions anyone who might propose another idea is an idiot.
I see his numbers, what he isn't counting is voters, or non-voters. He isn't factoring in elected politicians who promise one thing and do another (shocking I know). There are thousands of other factors that contribute to other solutions.
I understand and agree with his general sentiment, but let's not pretend that there are no options.
Just my .02

[Justin]

I find his use of bold, italic, and underlined text convincing.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

I find his use of bold, italic, and underlined text convincing.

lol

[Ronin13]

One issue I take up with that is the fact that he just lumps all .gov employees in the group that "will never vote to reduce the size and scope of government." Same with those who receive benefits. Granted, most gov employees and welfare (and related) recipients are likely to keep government growing, but there are exceptions to everything. The author likes to paint with the same brush, much like saying "all federal employees are democrats," which just is not true.

[Kraven251]

We are outvoted by 36%. As long as we have 3%, we have a chance.

[<MADDOG>]

Unfortunately, I have a hard time believing we will not end up like Greece, Cyprus, Argentina, etc.

Long story short; the "problem" will be self-correcting; but not necessarily in a "peaceful" manner.