The quiz will determine your view of economics from four different schools of thought,

1) Austrian
2) Chicago School
3) Keynsian
4) Socialist


http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp?QuizID=4

The quiz has only 25 questions and will take about 40 minutes to complete.

I will be interested in your scores.

Mine? I scored a 100, this means I am solidly in the anarco-capitalist camp.

The quiz will determine your view of economics from four different schools of thought,

1) Austrian 2) Chicago School 3) Keynsian 4) Socialist


Seems like Randolph omits a good old American School of Economics!
I do wonder why... :confused:


***LOL***

I wonder why Randolph, the libertarian white supremicist
economist doesn't know about this?

I suppose the public fool system is to blame.
The Colonies issued Colonial Script and the National Socialists
issued Riechmarks: Neither backed by gold and/or silver.

And both were so beneficial to both economies that
everyday Folk prospered wildly!
..........

There was a shortage of material for minting coins in the colonies, so they began to print their own paper money, which they called Colonial Script. This provided a very successful means of exchange and also gave the colonies a sense of identity. Colonial Script was money provided to help the exchange of goods. It was debt free paper money not backed by gold or silver.

During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied.

"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.

In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."
Benjamin Franklin 1

America had learned that the people's confidence in the currency was all they needed, and they could be free of borrowing debts. That would mean being free of the Bank of England. (Federal Reserve Private Bank)

1. Congressman Charles G. Binderup of Nebraska, Unrobing the Ghosts of Wall Street

.

Seems like Randolph omits a good old American School of Economics!
I do wonder why... :confused:





No_nomen, the American school of economics is known as Institutionalism and came about in the early 1900s when many Americans began to get their graduate education from the German Historical Shool. The same school which provided many apologists of national socialism.

When I think of American economics, I think of the era of Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson. The last era of free trade in America. Sure we had a ten year reprieve from governmental manipulation of our money suppy in the 1890s, it has been down hill ever since.

Since the beginning of the Federal Reserve, the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen over 98%.


I brought this thread back up to encourage all to take this economic test. It is certainly more challenging than the pychological test that some have taken already. It does not take any thought to determine whether you think you are sociable or not. But this test will challenge your thinking ability.

I am interested on how others on this forum understand the workings of our global and domestic economy. There is no right or wrong answer.

Remember the name Randolph. I will be the one
who will be leading the white movement from here on.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=2269#post2269

.........Buy Gold while the market is hot...

http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au0060lnb.gif
http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au0060lnb.gif

...........Help Randolph lead the Herd...
..............................Invest Now !
............Buy High ... Sell Low !

.--------------------------------

No_nomen,

You could at least prove to me that you can at least think for yourself. Take the quiz.

Here, WLP, written before the demise of the NA, and at a sufficient level of generality to keep us away from talMUDistic money minutia that have nothing to do with the 14 Words:

An Economic Policy Based on Racial Principles
There are two fundamental criteria which must be used for judging each and every governmental intervention in economic matters. They are, first, the long-range welfare and progress of the race; and second, human nature. Which is to say that in evaluating any economic policy we must ask ourselves two questions: Will this policy ultimately be beneficial or detrimental to the quality of our race? And is it in accord with human nature?

We look first at the racial effects of a policy and insist that they must be positive -- or at least not negative -- and then we insist that the policy be based on a clear and realistic understanding of human nature, so that it is workable.

We can understand better the significance of these two principles if we consider briefly two quite different economic systems, Marxism and laissez-faire capitalism.

Marxist economics has human happiness rather than racial progress as its ostensible aim, and it is based on assumptions that are at odds with reality and with human nature. It aims at providing material comfort for everyone, more or less equally. It cannot even admit the possibility of racial progress, because that implies that some types of men are inherently superior to others and that some directions of development are more desirable than other directions.

Whether one prefers the Marxist goal of the greatest happiness for the greatest number or the National Alliance goal of stronger, wiser, and more beautiful men and women is a matter of one's values. It was not on its choice of values that Marxism foundered. however, but on its refusal to recognize the fact of human inequality and the nature of human motivation. When people are not permitted to work for their own profit and advancement, they do not work well; and when a society's leaders do not attain their positions through their own merit, that society is likely to be ill led.

In contrast to the Marxist system, we recognize the need to permit people to compete, to reap the fruits of their labor, and to exercise leadership according to their demonstrated ability. They will work harder and more efficiently and will order themselves in a hierarchy of ability. The result will be a stronger, better led, and more prosperous society. There will of course, be those individuals who will not work or whose natural abilities are such that they cannot compete effectively. Rather than following the Marxist path of robbing the successful in order to reward the unsuccessful, we must take measures to ensure that society's lowest elements do not multiply and become more numerous in later generations.

The laissez faire capitalist system provides another illustrative contrast. Under such a system the society as a whole has no goals: there are only the goals of individual men and women. The capitalist system, like ours, provides strong incentives for individuals: the strong, aggressive, and clever rise and prosper, and the weak, indecisive, and stupid remain at the bottom. Leaders tend to be capable -- at least, in the capitalist economic environment, with its special conditions.

Without a unifying principle, however, a capitalist society easily can fall prey to certain inherent weaknesses. One of these weaknesses is the instability which leads the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer, not solely because of differences in ability but because the possession of capital gives the possessor an enormous advantage in the competition for more capital. When personal gain is the only motivation in a society, those who already are rich can arrange things to favor themselves: they can buy the legislation they want, and they can block threats to their power in ways that may be destructive to the welfare of the society as a whole. They can hold down the price of labor, limit healthy competition within the society, and exploit the environment without regard for the long-range consequences.

The overly rigid social stratification resulting from unrestricted capitalism can lead to endemic class hostility and even to class warfare. It can slow racial progress by making the ability to acquire and hold capital the supreme survival trait.

We need an economic system which, in contrast to Marxism, allows individuals to succeed in proportion to their capability and energy, but which, in contrast to capitalism, does not allow them to engage in socially or racially harmful activity, such as stifling competition or importing non-White labor. We need to structure our economic system so that it cannot fall prey to the instability of capitalism. We need to maintain social flexibility, so that capable and energetic individuals always have the possibility of rising. We need to ensure that capital does not have the possibility of changing society's rules to suit itself. The way to achieve and maintain an economic system which meets these criteria is to design and govern the system subject to the supreme principle: the ultimate aim of all economic policy is racial progress.

http://www.natvan.com/what-is-na/na2.html#economic

No_nomen, You could at least prove to me that
you can at least think for yourself. Take the quiz.

If no_nomen were in your Court perhaps he would have an interest
in proving the above to you.

Since you are in a Public Forum wishing that Folk believe your Claims
perhaps you would have an interest in addressing the Quotes below:


http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=3203#post3203

Forget No_nomen, he claims that there is no such thing as economic science.[/QUOTE/]

Then:
[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Randolph
No_nomen,

1. Yes, it is true that someone else claimed that economics is not a science.
2. However, your post immediately after that one supported that claim.

3. You have also made references to national socialist authors who also claim that economics is not a science.


Randolph,

1. Why do you continue to make Claims that are Not True?

2. Another False Claim Sir:

The support was clearly given to the statment that:

"Its when it (Economics) becomes a con job that it becomes a science to keep people from figuring it out."

3. Another Claim that you fail to provide any proof or even a refrence for!
[COLOR=Sienna]
See:

Post #30 in the thread "It is time for sensible action".
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=300#post300

Quoe: Styrkar Nielsen Member Joined: Dec 2003

[B]Randolph, you must realize that economics is not a science at all.

Its when it becomes a con job that it becomes a science to keep people from figuring it out.

Buy low, sell high. Buy from whites, build factories, keep the money in your own little circle.

Thats all there is to know.

You make it all sound so complicated that people close thier minds and go along with the Rothschild economic system.

Making money is simple when whites cooperate with each other instead of taking loans from jew banks.