[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I've not read it through, but in the search for freely available texts:http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/sites/default/files/pdf/class_text_125.pdf

Quote:

Hunter-gatherers are highly mobile, not just in the sense of whole bandsmoving from place to place but also in the sense of individuals and familiesmoving from band to band. Bands are not permanent structures with fixedmemberships. Everyone has friends and relatives in other bands who wouldwelcome them in. Because of this, and because they are not encumbered byproperty, individuals may move at a moment’s notice from one band to another.People move from band to band for marriage, but they also move to get awayfrom conflicts or simply because they are more attracted to the people or theprocedures that exist in another band. Disgruntled groups of people withinany band may also, at any time, leave the original band and start a new one.Thus, the decision to belong to any given band is always a person’s choice.The freedom of band members to leave sets the stage for the other playlike qualities of hunter-gatherer life.

His source for this is Hunters and Gatherers, Volume 1: History, Evolution, and Social Change, ed. Tim Ingold, David Riches, and James Woodburn (1988) Happy, erm, hunting.

 An interesting quote, YMS, and it points to the existence of a likely conflict avoidance mechanism  in the shape of the ability of individuals or groups to simply relocate.  The implication is that widepread resource scarcity such as happened among the Maoris of New Zealand after they effectively  overhunted large fauna to the point of extinction in some cases may be an important condition for the rise of violent inter-group encounters within hunter-gatherer societies

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Happy, erm, hunting.

And a happy, erm, avoiding difficult ideological questioning, to you, too, YMS!

A little hypocritical given that you have left at least two threads on this subject with questions  that remain unanswered 

 Yes absolutely!  Like LBird's flat refusal to explain precisely how  "the workers" – all 7 billion of us! -are ever going to be in a position to determine the "truth" of thousands upon  thousands of scientific theories by means of  a "democratic vote" or even to explain why this is necessary!!!  The idea is insane  but lets not derail this thread which is really about violence in a hunter gatherer society!

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…I recognise that this is also a question of power …

As usual for 'individualists', because you've done some reading, you genuflect to the question of 'power', and note it.But… for you, it plays no part in explaining power relationships within societies in particular historical contexts.You simply revert to asocial and ahistoric 'individuals', who suffer universal 'slights' and make universal 'responses'.You believe that you are an individual, and your activities and beliefs are entirely 'free', and that society should be composed of these 'free individuals'.This is bourgeois thinking, robbo.Unless you situate your 'individuals' in their society (ie. stop talking about 'individuals'), then you won't understand either hunter-gatherer society or our own.I'm a 'worker', by the way, not an 'individual', and power relationships are a part and parcel of my social existence, just as they are yours, and were for 'hunter-gatherers'.And as they are for anthropologists, and all scientists…

Oh dear –  I have visions of yet another long tiresome thread unfolding in which our resident  mystic holist, LBird, continues to utterly misrepresent those who think differently from him with his drearily predictable refrain that they  exhibit nothing but "bourgeois thinking". He, it seems, is the only here entitled to call himself a "democratic communist". LOL. No,. LBird I do not  believe I am an individual whose "activities and beliefs are entirely 'free', and that society should be composed of these 'free individuals'" Thats is not what I have ever said or implied.  At least be honest if you want to engage in a serious debate; I'm  frankly bored with having to constantly demolish you repetitive and ludicrous strawman arguments.   What I actually said was "Of course individuals are embedded, and act, within a social context – no one is disputing that" . How then can you possibly maintain that  I am promoting an ..er.."asocial and ahistoric (view of) individuals"? Your problem frankly is that you have this utterly  naive sociological perspective which is in fact the mirror image of Margaret Thatcher's . Whereas for her, there is no such thing as "society", for you there is no such things as "individuals" and therefore we should "stop talking about individuals".  What you and Thatcher completely overlook is that the one thing without the other is completely senseless.  You both have a totally black-or-white view in which there exists either only concrete individuals (Thatcher) or only some mysteriously reified entity called "society"  (You),Nether of you grasp the reciprocal and interactive nature of this relationship whereby  individuals constitute society and are constituted by society – continuously. And you don't understand what is individualism is. So you come out with nonsensical remarks  like this I think that your ideological individualism compels you to regard any 'social' limits upon 'individual free will' as 'holist'. I don't subscribe to  something called "ideological individualism"  – I doubt if you even  know what that means! – and the mere application of social limits  on individual free will does not equate with holism . Holism signifies the whole determining the parts whereas with individualism  (or atomism), the parts  determine the whole. I don't accept either of these positions but take an intermediate one "Individualism", for your information, is a politico-economic stance which is oriented towards the exterior world – to do with one's relations with other individuals – and is motivated by what one perceives to be in one's self interest. "Individuality" means something quite different and refers to the interior subjective world or the individual himself or herself.  The hunter gatherer like the modern proletarian has what we call an interior subjective reality: self consciousness. Its something that acquire through a process of socialisation. By becoming conscious of the existence of others we become conscious of ourselves Please stop confusing these two terms!

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Comrades will note robbo's ideological stress upon 'individuals' being 'slighted or wronged' and responding 'accordingly'.I think this requires an examination of what counts as 'slights and wrongs', and why, and who determines, and what counts as 'accordingly', and why, and who detemines.For example, what evidence of a 'slight' exists in the 'material record'? Or is robbo making assumptions about 'individuals' in our society, and assuming that 'individuals' in other societies recognise and react to 'slights' in a similar way (based upon, say, 'human nature'?).If 'slighting and reactions' are ahistoric, why didn't slaves respond to slights from their masters, but overwhelmingly just accepted them? As too for unresponsive serfs and their lords?Can a 'hunter-gatherer' be slighted, as an individual? If they can, must they respond accordingly?

Look at the evidence I have already provided in the form of John Horton's article on Fry and Soderberg's research. In particular note : Most of the killings stemmed from what Fry and Soderberg categorize as “miscellaneous personal disputes,” involving jealousy, theft, insults and so on Why didn't slaves respond to the slights of their masters?  Because, taking precisely the historic approach which you refer to, I recognise that this is also a question of power – unless of course you want to take up the position that slaves did not feel slighted in which case, be my guest. The inability of slaves to do anything about their maltreatment and the likely consequences of trying to do something about it probably acted as a deterrent and would explain why slaves for the most part didn't do much "responding" to the slights of their masters.  Hunter gatherers, on the other hand, had the freedom to roam where they wished and to break away from the group whenever they wished.  They lived in egalitarian societies  in which no individual could  expect to slight another and get away with it.  So to answer your question –  of course, they could be slighted and by all account the slighting of one individuals by another seems to have been an a significant factor in what violence there was in that form of society if the anthropological evidence is to be believed.  Or does your mystic holism rule this out as being at all  possible?

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

For example, whether one's definition of 'individual' is biological (and so transcends history and society, and thus one can discuss 'individuals' and their own actions without reference to the place of that 'individual'), or whether one's definition of 'individual' is ideological (and so is embedded in history and society, and thus one can't discuss 'individuals' and their actions without reference to their time).I'll be explicit: my definition of 'individual' is ideological (I'm a Democratic Communist), so I will regard any talk by authors or posters about 'individuals' as contaminated by bourgeois ideology. I would only refer to 'social-individuals', and situation any action by a hunter-gatherer in a political context.

 Of course individuals are embedded, and act, within a social context – no one is disputing that  – but it is nonsense to assert that merely  to talk about "individuals" as "being contaminated by bourgeois ideology".  You can't talk about society without acknowledging also the existence of individuals who compromise it – just as you can't talk about individuals without acknowledging the existence of the social  context  in which they are embedded.  Your "social-individuals" obscures the necessary reciprocal relationship that goes on here and amounts to a form of mystic holism from which effectively the very idea of "individuals" is expunged Contrary to the ideas of holists like Durkheim with his talk of "mechanical solidarity" and undifferentiated "group think",  traditional societies such as hunter gatherers were characterised by a high degree of individuality  (which is not the same as "individualism") leading to individuals breaking away from the group to set up another group as a form of conflict avoidance – the fissioning process endemic to HG groups.  In other words, they saw themselves as individuals who could be slighted and wronged and so able to respond accordingly – just as much as they saw themselves also as part of a group.  Thats is precisely why conflict within a HG societies tended to be radically decentralised and this in turn may be part of the reason why war as a systemic expression of group based conflict did not seem to have been evident in such societies – at least in the paleolithic era

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I've lost the reference, a book recently came across my desk looking at early warfare.  The conclusion (all I had time to look at) was that if you defien war as "socially sanctioned violence against another polity" (I think that was teh formula) then war has always been with us, including among hunter gatherers, however, if you don't take on that definition, and become stricter in your definition of war, then it hasn't been.

YMSDid the book provide any evidence that there was "socially sanctioned violence against another polity" in the Paleolithic era and what was this evidence? The anthropologist , R. Brian Ferguson, considered to be the foremost expert on the early history of war, has pointed out:  "Many hominid remains once thought to establish the most ancient evidence of homicide or cannibalism were actually gnawed by predators or just suffered postmortem breakage" (R. Brian Ferguson , Jul/Aug 2003, "The Birth of War" , Natural History  , Vol. 112, Issue 6).  Ferguson himself has conducted an extensive global survey of archaeological records and has found no substantive  evidence of systematic violence in  prehistoric human societies. Its worth reading the link I supplied above in which Ferguson effectively demolishes Pinkers argument. Around  the time of the neolithic revolution you might possibly begin to see signs of systematic organised violence but this would have been chiefly among tribally based agriculturalist societies where territorial defence becomes an issue unlike with nomadic HGs.  If there was any evidence of HG violence around this time it would probably be the result of their interactions with these tribal agriculturalists.Even Keeley whose 1996 War before Civilisation which Pinker relied heavily upon admitted that HGs were significantly more peaceful than agriculturalists

[robbo203]

One other point – and this ties in with the claim that has been implied, if not openly expressed, on this forum, that there are no such things as individuals, only society  (which is as equally untenable as Margaret Thatcher's notorious claim that there is "no such thing as society only individuals and their families")  – the pattern of violence, such as it occurs in hunter gatherer societies, seems to be very much individually based. Group violence is rare and the argument that organised warfare is a comparatively recent phenomenon going back no more than 10,000 years ago is, I think, a very persuasive one Very interesting in this regard is this article by John Horgan http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/07/18/new-study-of-foragers-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/ .  Note in particular this:Of the 21 societies examined by Fry and Soderberg, three had no observed killings of any kind, and 10 had no killings carried out by more than one perpetrator. In only six societies did ethnographers record killings that involved two or more perpetrators and two or more victims. However, a single society, the Tiwi of Australia, accounted for almost all of these group killings.Some other points of interest: 96 percent of the killers were male. No surprise there. But some readers may be surprised that only two out of 148 killings stemmed from a fight over “resources,” such as a hunting ground, water hole or fruit tree. Nine episodes of lethal aggression involved husbands killing wives; three involved “execution” of an individual in a group by other members of the group; seven involved execution of “outsiders,” such as colonizers or missionaries.Most of the killings stemmed from what Fry and Soderberg categorize as “miscellaneous personal disputes,” involving jealousy, theft, insults and so on. The most common specific cause of deadly violence—involving either single or multiple perpetrators–was revenge for a previous attack.This confirms the view that conflict was radically decentralised  in hunter gatherer societies and  tended to involve only those immediately affected.   It also overthrows the traditional view of hunter gatherers as lacking in individuality and being completely  subject to group think (note that "individuality" is not the same thing as "individualism", though – a mistake that is often made). In  fact, the radical decentralisation of  conflict may be one of the reasons why there was no warfare in traditional paleolithic hunter gather societies – conflict was simply not allowed to escalate or widen. That apart , the grounds for group conflict  (and the above data bears this out),  such as the struggle  over resources would simply not have arisen to any extent because of the ability of hunter gather bands to simply  move on whenever food resources declined within a given locality.  It is when nomadism is checked, as with the imposition of national boundaries or the confinement of HG groups within designated "reserves",  that the possibility of conflict arises. Which is why contemporary HG groups may well register higher levels of violence than was traditionally the case This is an important subject to discuss because it ties in with arguments about human nature – and by extension about the possibility of a stateless communist future society.  Pinker et al are arguing that the Hobbesian state was the decisive factor in the alleged mitigation of violence under a statist form of society. Insofar as the state is the instrument par excellance for the social regulation of class society,   what is really being debated here  is whether we need a class based society at all

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, I'm not going to reply to your last post, because I don't think that you're reading what I write, about the problematic context of these issues.I'm going to say something that I regret, and I don't want to be banned again (how ironic would that be, given the context of this thread), so you're going to have to address your questions to other posters, or just deem me to be a fool and not worth engaging with.

 I understand very well the "problematic context  of these issues" you speak of and I am not disputing that the production of scientific knowledge is a "social "process which is the basic point you are making.  What I wanted to know from you is your answer to the practical questions I raised.  Don't just patronsingly  brush these aside  with the suggestion that because you imagine that I haven't read what you have written that this entitles you to say that you are not going to reply to my last post. But, of course, at the end of the day you can't get blood out of a stone. I can't force you to answer those questions I raised. But don't be surprised, then,  if some of us draw the conclusion that you are little more than an internet  troll with no serious intention of engaging in genuine discussion

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, I've answered your questions time and time again, and not just yours, but others too, but none of you will engage in a discussion, and simply appear outraged that someone should argue that workers as a collective might know better than scientists as a collective.

 You are deluding yourself.  You haven't even begun to answer the questions posed.  How specifically are the workers expected to gain a working acquaintance with thousands upon the thousands of scientific theories in order to determine the "truth" of each of them by means  of a democratic vote when not even the most brilliant and accomplished scientist today would be familiar with more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of scientific knowledge?  Whats more.  you have flatly refused to explain the logistics behind this mind boggling proposal of yours.   Specifically, how are 7 billion people on our planet going to vote , not just on one or two, but the thousands upon thousands of scientific theories that are churned out each and every year? What are the mechanics of such a voting procedure? And if , as seems likely. no more than a tiny minority are likely to "vote" on any one theory anyway arent you going to end up with the  same "elitist" outcome that you accuse your critics of proposing? Don't run away from these probing questions as you usually do, LBird.  Answer them with a straight answer or risk being exposed as a disingenuous fraud.  

LBird wrote:

Once more, from a physicist: If workers are not the ones to vote on these issues, who are?Who determines 'best'?Read the bloody quote, slowly and properly, and give us all an answer to Rovelli's conundrum. The physicists don't know. Matter doesn't tell them. So, who should determine the 'best' for science? And stop pestering me with inane rants.

 Thats rich coming from you!  You are a past master in "inane rants".  In fact the Rovelli  quote which you evidently cling to in a desperate bid to sound remotely plausible,  does not even address my point at all which you too have, once again, deftly sidestepped.  That point is – why VOTE on  a scientific theory at all? What  is the point of it ? What are you trying to prove by voting on it?  That  the scientific theory in question is  "true"?  So what? Does that mean we must abandon criticising it? Isn't science supposed to be constantly self critical? And if a minority continue to think the theory is flawed you are not going to persuade them that they are wrong by just pointing out to them that they are in a minority, are you now? Your problem is you don't what democracy is about or what it is for.  Democracy is about practical issues that affect our lives . It is not about the merits of some or other scientific theory.  Of course the production of scientific knowledge is "social" in the broad sociological sense of the word and I for one would certainly be opposed to any restriction whatsoever on anyone contributing to the stock of scientific knowledge  and participating tin scientific debates of the day to whatever extent they can. However,  I am also saying that IN PRACTICE  no one – not you, not me , not even the most brilliant scientific mind in the universe  – can grasp more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of scientific knowledge.  You just airily brush this aside as if this it  is of no account, as if there is no such thing as scientific specialism,  as if the years and years of study and research that any scientist puts in to become competent in his or her field, counts for nothing , and that anyone whatsoever can just assimilate all this knowledge in just a trifle and vote on the matter knowing what its all about.Sorry L Bird but what you are saying is bonkers.  You are turning the the very concept of democracy into a laughing stock by misrepresenting what its supposed to be about.  And you have absolutely no clue about the practicalities of what it is you are proposing  but hide behind pious platitudes  – "I'm a democratic communist" – in order to avoid having to provide real answers to the real questions being asked of you

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I think once we start to regard at least some scientists as 'peddlers in misery', we'd begin to overcome the political mystique of 'authoritative, objective science'. Science is a human, social and historical activity, and must be subject to workers' control.

Answer the questions in post 105, LBird, or stand accused of being a peddlar in delusions yourself

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

So, in a socialist society, 'just democratic control of society' would be "workers' power".I keep asking those who disagree with me to tell me who, if not the 'producers' (or, 'workers', as defined above), shall have political power.They seem to argue for either 'individuals' (allegedly 'free'; often from robbo203) or an 'elite group' (of 'experts'; often from Young Master Smeet).I disagree, and argue that socialism equates to "workers' democracy", and that the 'means of production' clearly includes 'science' and the production of knowledge/truth, and that the means of production will be under the control of workers' democracy.

 Here we go again.How  can the workers as a whole democratically "control the production of scientific knowledge". You never ever answer this question. Why is that LBird?To vote on a scientific theory, assuming for the sake of argument there was any point in doing this, you have to know something about the theory – yes? But not even the most brilliant scientist today is acquainted with more than a small fraction of the sum total of scientific theories in circulation today  And yet you expect a global population of 7 billion individuals to vote on, not just one, but the totality of scientific theories in circulation – thousands upon thousands of them.  Thats bonkers!That apart , you have never explained even once why the workers need to vote on these scientific theories .  If you can't answer the above question, can you at least answer this one – why do you think workers need to democratically determine whether a scientific theory is true or not.  I just dont get it. What difference will it make if they don't bother to vote? I can perfectly understand the need for workers democratically vote  when it comes to something like, say,  the allocation of resources among rival projects but the "truth" of a scientific theory? Are you serious?What is the point of voting for such a thing? Please explain

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 If fact, we haven't exhausted this, because neither you, nor any other poster, nor the SPGB officially, has told us 'who determines' what is 'scientifically true'……To me, as a Democratic Communist, that only acceptable answer is "workers' democracy" shall determine 'truth'.

 And you haven't told how this  "workers democracy" – all 7 billion of us! – is going to be able to "determine" what is "scientifically  true".  How are each and every one of us  going to acquire the necessary knowledge and understanding of,  not just one scientific theory but every scientific theory doing the rounds,  in order to determine the truth of these thousands  upon thousands of theories when not even the most brilliant scientist in the world today would be able to speak authoritatively on anything more  than a tiny fraction of those thousands of scientific theories.  You are asking for the impossible. Why you need to "determine" the truth of a scientific theory by means of a democratic vote is completely baffling anyway.  It seems pretty pointless – unless, that is,  you want to forbid any rival  theory being expressed that questions what has been democratically approved  and sanctioned as the "Truth" by this  workers democracy of yours.  If that is the case  well,  then,  you might as well admit that you have abandoned science as a self-critical open-minded  activity  and turned what you call scientific truth into a mere dogma. Oh and here's one more question – why do you constantly run away from answering these questions that have been put to you time and time again but to no avail? Its beginning to seem like a complete waste of time even engaging in discussion with you.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I'm not sure what to call this truncated theory of democracy. The word "totalitarian" comes to mind but "totalitarian democracy" seems a contradiction in terms. All I can think of for what he's advocating is "the dictatorship of the majority". The trouble is, though, that democracy does involve the majority having its way ("dictating", if you like) but not on everything, not in particular on what people can think and say.Can anybody think of a better term?

Well, if you eliminate the "minority" in the sense of depriving it of the right to disagree then it is no longer even sensible to talk of a "majority".  A majority only exists by virtue of the existence of a minority which is why I think what LBird is talking about is not democracy at all but a form of totalitarianism.  And his whole conception of it is built on a fundamental contradiction which he cant seem to see and whuch YMS pointed out to himThat apart, I think he ought to pressed on this particular fetish of his concerning a technocratic elite and the need to submit such things as scientific  theories to a "democratic vote". I don't think he has a leg to stand on here which is why he never gives a straight answer to a straight question  but runs away from the question and covers his tracks with vague generalisations and pious platitudes.So here's another question to L Bird . He talks of "workers democracy"  and the need for workers to socially determine everything that goes on in society by means of a democratic vote.  But in my last post I raised the hypothetical case of a local community trying to decide on where to site a new medical centre in its locality.  Does L Bird think this is  really a matter for the locals themselves to decide or does he consider that in his so called "democratic communist" society  the global population of workers should be involved in this (and of course the millions of other such "local" decisions….)If he thinks the latter is the case can he please explain how  7 billion workers are going to meaningfully and democratically participate in making these millions of decisions.  I want a direct answer to this from himIf he thinks the former is the case can he please explain what is the difference between this and the situation where inevitably you are going to find only a small number of people knowing enough about some complex scientific theory to sensibly comment on it?  Let us not have any more straw arguments about people wanting to put barriers in the way of others wanting to come to an understanding about such theories. No one here is wanting to place barriers on anyone acquiring more knowledge. Its got nothing to do with that. Its got everything to do with the simple undeniable fact that no individual can ever acquire anything more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of human knowledge. Specialism is the direct consequence of that undeniable fact and it does not in the least signify the absence of democracy  But then LBird has never really understood what democracy is about and, more to the point,  what it is for.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

I found that a number of SPGB members either denied censorship was being used or that a little was necessary for maintaining control.

This sums up my point, really.I think censorship is inescapable, and it's better to admit this, and state clearly who has the power to censor.

Censor what, though? That is surely  the  crucial  point,  isn't it?  You have put forward  the preposterous and totally unworkable idea that scientific theories, among many other things,  will be voted upon in order to establish what you call "The Truth".   Here is what you said on the "Science for Communists" thread:"The productive activities of those 'doctors, scientists and engineers' (and of all the other workers who choose to specialise in whatever area, including physics or sociology, and every discipline inbetween), including any alleged 'truths' that they produce, should be subject to a democratic vote. Thus, society will collectively and democratically determine the ethics, politics and science of that society.So going along with this crackpot suggestion for the sake of argument, the workers – all 7 billion of us – have fully equipped ourselves with  a comprehensive understanding  of, say, String theory.  We decide that it is a load of bollocks and vote it down.  What then?  Clearly, the implication of what you are saying is that the advocates of String theory would no longer be permitted to advance String Theory.  In short , they would be censored.  Otherwise what would be the point of the democratic vote?. If  it  is just to piously affirm what a majority think anyway why bother?.  They will think  that anyway and the minority will think what it thinks too anywayFrankly, your whole argument is just plain daft. You haven't really thought through this have you? We need democratic decision making where it is needed  – to reach decisions that have some kind of practical bearing on our lives – where there is conflict of interests of sorts to resolve.  By no stretch of the imagination does deciding whether String Truth is true or false fall under the heading. If someone wants to continue believing in String theory then so be it. It s not going to affect me in the slightest We can argue what might possibly be an appropriate  subject for censorship  e,.g, the exposure of pornographic material to kids  – and how that might be managed in communist society  but I would like just once to get off your high horse and at least acknowledge the point that in other areas of human activity such as science the very idea of censorship is indeed utter nonsense.  And if it is nonsense then the whole idea of "voting" to determine the "truth" of a scientific theory is equally nonsense 

LBird wrote:

Mind you, if they can define 'democracy' as 'free association', anything's possible.'Democracy' means "workers' power", not 'free association'.

But its not one thing or the other is it?  Its both.  You certainly cannot have democracy without the right to disagree, to dissent  and to freely associate.  Your thinking on this matter is far too black and white.  And then there is also the question of what you mean by "workers power" Is the global population going to democratically vote on where your local community is going to site its new medical Centre? No? Oh so then its not all the workers who are going to decide on such a pressing matter but only some of them – in fact only a very tiny minority of them – presumably only  those who live locally . All of which makes a complete mockery of all your nonsensical talk about "elitism".  If you really took what you are saying at face value then every decision decision taken in the world  would have to be subject to a vote of the entire world's population,Is that what you are saying LBird? Do tell us.  Because if you are not saying  then you would be contradicting yourself and your whole argument for "workers democracy" would be exposed as the total sham it is

[robbo203]

This might be of interest to some – "Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070 Thoughts?

[Author]

Posts