Sat

11

Oct

2008

The God That Failed: The 30-Year Lie of the Market Cult
Tweet me!
Written by Chris Floyd   

Perhaps the most striking fact revealed by the global financial crash -- or rather, by the reaction to it -- is the staggering, astonishing, gargantuan amount of money that the governments of the world have at their command.

In just a matter of days, we have seen literally trillions of dollars offered to the financial services sector by national treasuries and central banks across the globe. Britain alone has put $1 trillion at the disposal of the bankers, traders, lenders and speculators; and this has been surpassed by the total package of public money that Washington is shoveling into the financial furnaces of Wall Street and the banks. These radical efforts are being replicated on a slightly smaller scale in France, Germany, Italy, Russia and many other countries.

The effectiveness of this unprecedented transfer of wealth from ordinary citizens to the top tiers of the business world remains to be seen. It will certainly insulate the very rich from the consequences of their own greed and folly and fraud; but it is not at all clear how much these measures will shield the vast majority of people from the catastrophe that has been visited upon them by the elite.

But putting aside for a moment the actual intent, details and results of the global bailout offers, it is their very extent that shocks, and shows -- in a stark, harsh, all-revealing light -- the brutal disdain with which the national governments of the world's "leading democracies" have treated their own citizens for decades.

Beginning with Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979, government after government -- and party after party -- fell to the onslaught of an extremist faith: the narrow, blinkered fundamentalism of the "Chicago School." Epitomized by its patron saint, Milton Friedman, the rigid doctrine held that an unregulated market would always "correct" itself, because its workings are based on entirely rational and quantifiable principles.  This was of course an absurdly reductive and savagely ignorant view of history, money and human nature; but because it flattered the rich and powerful, offering an "intellectual" justification for rapacious greed and ever-widening economic and social inequality, it was adopted as holy writ by the elite and promulgated as public policy.

This radical cult -- a kind of Bolshevism from above -- took its strongest hold in the United States and Britain, and was then imposed on many weaker nations through the IMF-led "Washington Consensus" (more aptly named by Naomi Klein as the "Shock Doctrine"), with devastating and deadly results. (As in Yeltsin's Russia, for example, where life expectancy dropped precipitously and millions of people died premature deaths from poverty, illness, and despair.)

According to the cult, not only were markets to be freed from the constraints placed on them after the world-shattering effects of the Great Depression, but all public spending was to be slashed ruthlessly to the bone. (Although exceptions were always made for the Pentagon war machine.) After all, every dollar spent by a public entity on public services and amenities was a dollar taken away from the private wheeler-dealers who could more usefully employ it in increasing the wealth of the elite -- who would then allow some of their vast profits to "trickle down" to the lower orders.

This was the cult that captured the governments of the United States and Britain (among others), as well as the Republican and Democratic parties, and the Conservative and Labour parties as well. And for almost thirty years, its ruthless doctrines have been put into practice. Regulation and oversight of financial markets were systematically stripped away or rendered toothless. Essential public services were sold off, for chump change, to corporate interests. Public spending on anything other than making war, threatening war and profiting from war was pared back or eliminated. Such public spending that did remain was forever under threat and derided, like the remnants of some pagan faith surviving in isolated backwaters.

Year after year, the ordinary citizens were told by their governments: we have no money to spend on your needs, on your communities, on your infrastructure, on your health, on your children, on your environment, on your quality of life. We can't do those kinds of things any more.

Of course, when talking amongst themselves, or with the believers in the think tanks, boardrooms -- and editorial offices -- the cultists would speak more plainly: we don't do those things anymore because we shouldn't do them, we don't want to do them, they are wrong, they are evil, they are outside the faith. But for the hoi polloi, the line was usually something like this: Budgets are tight, we must balance them (for a "balanced budget" is a core doctrine of the cult), we just can't afford all these luxuries, sorry about that.

But now, as the emptiness and falsity of the Chicago cargo cult stands nakedly revealed, even to some of its most faithful and fanatical adherents, we can see that this 30-year mantra by our governments has been a deliberate and outright lie. The money was there -- billions and billions and billions of dollars of it, trillions of dollars of it. We can see it before our very eyes today -- being whisked away from our public treasuries and showered upon the banks and the brokerages.

Let's say it again: The money was there all along.

Money to build and generously equip thousands and thousands of new schools, with well-paid, exquisitely trained teachers, small teacher-pupil ratios, a full range of enriching and inspiring programs.

Money to revitalize the nation's crumbling inner cities, making them safe and vibrant places for businesses and families and communities to grow.

Money to provide decent, affordable and accessible health care to every citizen, to provide dignity and comfort to the elderly, and protection and humane treatment for the mentally ill.

Money to provide affordable higher education to everyone who wanted it and could qualify for it. Money to help establish and sustain local businesses and family farms, centered in and on the local community, driven by the needs and knowledge of the people in the area, and not by the dictates of distant corporations.

Money to strengthen crumbling infrastructure, to repair bridges, shore up levies, maintain roads and electric grids and sewage systems.

Money for affordable, workable public transport systems, for the pursuit of alternative sources of energy, for sustainable, sensible development, for environmental restoration.

Money to support free inquiry in science, technology, health and other areas -- research unfettered from the war machine and the drive for corporate profit, and instead devoted to the betterment of human life.

Money to support culture, learning, continuing education, libraries, theater, music and the endless manifestations of the human quest to gain more meaning, more understanding, more enlightenment, a deeper, spiritually richer life.

The money for all of this -- and much, much more -- was there, all along. When they said we couldn't have these things, they were lying -- or else allowing themselves to be profitably duped by the high priests of the market cult. When they wanted a trillion dollars -- or three trillion dollars -- to wage a war of aggression in Iraq, they found it. Now, when they want trillions of dollars to save the speculators, fraudsters and profiteers of greed in the global market, they suddenly have it.

Who then can believe that these governments could not have found the money for good schools, health care, and all the rest, that they could not have enhanced the well-being and livelihood of millions of ordinary citizens, and helped create a more just and equitable and stable world -- if they had wanted to?

This is one of the main facts that ordinary citizens around the world should take away from this crisis: the money to maintain, secure and improve the lives of their families and communities was always there -- but their governments, and their political parties, made a deliberate, unforced choice not to use it for the common good. Instead, they subjugated the well-being of the world to the dictates of an extremist cult. A cult of greed and privilege, that preached iron discipline to the poor and the middle-class, but released the rich and powerful from all restrictions, and all responsibility for their actions.

This should be a constant -- and galvanizing -- thought in the minds of the public in the months and years to come. Remember what you could have had, and how it was denied you by the lies and delusions of a powerful elite and their bought-off factotums in government. Remember the trillions of dollars that suddenly appeared when the wheeler-dealers needed money to cover their own greed and stupidity.

Let these thoughts guide you as you weigh the promises and actions of politicians and candidates, and as you assess the "expert analysis" on economic and domestic policy offered by the corporate media and the corporate-bankrolled think tanks and academics.

And above all, let these thoughts be foremost in your mind when you hear -- as you certainly will hear, when (and if) the markets are finally stabilized (at whatever gigantic cost in human suffering) -- the adherents of the market cult emerge once more and call for "deregulation" and "untying the hands of business" and all the other ritual incantations of their false and savage fundamentalist faith.

For although the market cult has suffered a cataclysmic defeat in the last few weeks, it is by no means dead. It has 30 years of entrenchment in power to fall back on. And the leader of every major political party in the West has spent their entire political career within the cult's confines. It has been the atmosphere they breathed, it has been the sole ladder by which they have climbed to prominence. They will be loath to abandon it, once the immediate crisis is past; most will not be able to.

So remember well the lessons of this new October crash: The money to make a better life, to serve the common good, has always been there. But it has been kept from you by deceit, by dogma, by greed, and by the ambition of those who have sold their souls, and betrayed their brothers and sisters, their fellow human creatures, for the sake of privilege and power.

Comments (63)add comment

troll with the punches said:

0
...
great post chris

one small question though at the risk of playing the devil's advocate--do the bailouts/restructuring prove that governments "had" this money all along? Because in the case of the US we already have an ever-expanding deficit. In fact "we" don't "have" this money right now, right? We are making future generations pay for it.

But your larger point is correct, I think. The will to get the money was always there. Governments could have decided to expand the deficit to build better societies for its people ...
October 11, 2008

whitewhale said:

0
...
The new San Francisco Museum of Natural Science in Golden Gate park has a
-planetarium
-rainforest jungle
-coral reef
-science and research labs
-living green roof

price tag = 0.5 billion for the San Francisco Museum of Natural Science

$700 billion would have been enough money to build 1400 natural history museums, enough to put a beautiful museum in every major city.

October 11, 2008

Grandma Jefferson said:

1286
...
This should be read by everyone. Everybody, please share with any social networks you may be into. People need to wake up and throw off the branwashing that has enslaved and impoverished them and their posterity. Maybe this global collapse will accomplish that, it did briefly after the last great Depression.
October 12, 2008

Donald L. Smith said:

0
...
To say these things to most risks being regarded as a being from another world.
I have fired this to many in the past few hours, people I thought were paying attention.
The clarity of ideas and moral anger expressed by Mr. Floyd in this GREAT piece of writing should penetrate all save the most brainwashed among us.
I do not have words for the gratitude I feel when I am able to recognise that I am not alone in my rage and sorrow.
October 12, 2008

gdsmithtx said:

0
"troll with the punches said"
The governments don't suddenly "have" this money, but in a pinch they can sure as hell raise it, can't they? Which means that, with a little political will and commitment to the greater good, we could have been spending a lot more than we have been to make things better. As Chris says "The money was there."

When you were told there was no way to pay, for example, for single-pay4er healthcare that would cover and benefit practically every single American ... you were lied to. The money was there, all that was lacking was the courage to spend it.
October 12, 2008

Debbie(aussie) said:

960
...
Yet again, Chris, you blow the b*st*rds out of the water. Great article.
I ask this of myself and family all the time, What is the use of having all that money if doesn't DO something? I believe that that there is enough money in the world so that each and every person, in the world could have a decent home, work etc. If only we had the will. 'You can't take it with you', so why hoard it? As is often the case I scream while pulling out my hair in deep frustration! ARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!
October 12, 2008

troll with the punches said:

0
...
Thanks, gdsmithtx. I do get the larger and excellent point that Chris makes. In the end it really doesn't matter whether the government "had" this money. They certainly figured out a way to get it no matter what.
And running record deficits were all a part of a deliberate strategy to "strangle" [each and everyone of us] "in the bathtub"
October 12, 2008

Ernie said:

1779
...
eloquent,cogent and accurate -- thank you. Money is based on collective will: no matter what the stock market does, houses and structures still stand, people still move about. Only human labour is intrinsically valuable, not gold or diamonds.
October 12, 2008

cbrace said:

1720
bravo!
Same story of course here in the Netherlands. For decades the coalition parties have trimming social spending under the mantra "we can't afford it". Then, in the course of a weekend, the minister of finances forks over €16 billion to nationalize Fortis/ABN AMRO. Like Chris says, "the money was there all along.
October 12, 2008 | url

lordmisterford said:

1643
Money? What's money? Who "makes" money now and to what end do they "make" it?
"Making" money used to be a matter of stamping coins or printing paper. Now it's simply a matter of typing numbers into a computer. Somebody, somewhere (is it Wall Street or the White House or somewhere else) has the power to create money by typing numbers into a machine. The "money," in the form of binary data, is then disbursed across the Internet and "loaned" to people who never touch it and "spent" by them using credit cards. So far from being a commodity limited by the supply of gold (or of paper), the supply of money is now virtually unlimited. We have found El Dorado at last.

Repercussions from the fact have yet to shake themselves out. Total control of all human beings is now theoretically possible. So is the elimination of famine and privation. Crime will surely be possible, but the nature of crime will have to change -- or will it? Interesting times we live in. I miss being bored.
October 12, 2008 | url

Markarena said:

0
Best piece in months
Chris,

You've outdone yourself again with this article. I'm saving it to Word to print and copy for many others to read. You and Arthur Silber are some of the very few who truly speak truth to power. Thanks!
October 12, 2008

William Landers said:

0
God didn't fail. God is bring down the Globalist
Genesis 9 and 10
Acts 17:26-28

Government
and he made from one (people/blood), every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the surface of the earth, having determined there appointed times It (in history) and the boundaries of their habitation (expanded trans., Acts 17:26).

In the Devil's world, I must provide safety for mankind. He has done so by dividing the world into national entities with geographical boundaries and the formation of divine institution number four. It inherits the laws of establishment under a national entity versus protection for each nation. And in the political concept, a national entity and compass all three categories-ritual, geographical and linguistic. Problems are often compounded when a nation is comprised of more than one race. Yet anyone who becomes a citizen of that country, often called the "melting pot" because of his multiracial ordinance, relinquishes allegiance to his former homeland and pledges loyalty to this, his adopted land.

Human government was founded in Genesis 9 and 10, at the beginning of the post a million civilization. Obeying God's command to "replenish the {whole} earth," the descendents of Noah scattered and resettle in accordance with the geographical boundaries set for them (Genesis10:5, 31, 32). However as a population increased, people were reluctant to separate further and finally conjugated into fertile plains of the Tigers-Euphrates Valley (Genesis 11:2). There, at Babel, and satirically inspired rebellion against God, the people instituted the concept of internationalism. Because the one nation one language concept is contrary to the vine design for mankind, the human race might have become extinct but for the grace of God. When force in this plan of national entities and by ordaining the existence of many languages, got secured the perpetuation of mankind (Genesis 11:7-9).

The problem being is that we have allowed our country to become globalized or headed toward the globalized nation. This concept is contrary to God's divine plan. God has not failed mankind, mankind has failed God. We must blame ourselves in for this failure in our teachings that we allowed the concept of globalization and internationalism to forsake ourselves and violate the divine institution number four.

October 12, 2008 | url

blue ox babe said:

0
...
Powerful and timely. One of your best, Mr Floyd.
October 12, 2008

blue ox babe said:

0
...
As to Troll with the Punches' quote:

one small question though at the risk of playing the devil's advocate--do the bailouts/restructuring prove that governments "had" this money all along?


You ignore the notion of what is fiat currency. The money is there if they say it's there. That's the whole point of fiat currency. It is a paper exercise, it is a stage prop, it is a ruse. Imagine the brilliance: encourage people to focus their existential efforts on chasing an intellectual construct -- "money".

Nobody seems to stop to think about what money is, exactly. And so I ask YOU, troll. What IS money? Where does it originate?

If the USA can go into trillions of $$$ of debt, and yet "find" money to finance military excursions and bailouts of supposedly-failing businesses, where is this money coming from?

It's simply created. It's an exercise in creative accounting.

Perhaps now, people will begin to see that the true liars in American society are economists, accountants, and those who earn their income by playing with money.

If you don't produce something tangible, but instead merely manipulate numbers, then you contribute nothing. And this is what The American Economy has done since WW2 -- focused on contributing nothing, but making money while doing it.

It was always destined for failure. It was always a long con game of 50 years' duration.

The only question remaining is, how long until a majority of Americans comes to realize this?
October 12, 2008

blue ox babe said:

0
...
lordmisterford -- that's an excellent post. thanks for sharing those thoughts.
October 12, 2008

RedPhillip said:

0
...
To whomever William Landers may be:

This religious lunacy is the most useless crap I've ever seen posted on this site. Go away. Stay away.

Doing my best to fail 'God' every day,
Phillip Allen
October 12, 2008

Robert P said:

0
...
Some of us have been saying things to this effect since ronnyraygun.. his Drizzlin Sh.. theory was malarkey from the get go, and that sooner or later we would see a real depression that would make 29 look like a picnic
With that in mind we eventually found a place out in the wood, that we could afford and started an ecofarm, with the aim that oil would be short supply or too expensive.
Eventually we plan on being oil free, growing organic veggies, some chickens, possibly goats and a few hogs, because this so called recession my be bigger and last longer than the Great Depression.
I thought the 87 panic was going to be IT.
Our government gives billions in corps welfare to companies that sell bad or poisionous food and drugs or cars that suck gas like the hummer.
I think it is time to fire every incumbent in congress and start over.
October 12, 2008

David C said:

0
Uhh, this was a failure of socialism and central planning
I really find it pathetic that people think this is a failure of the unregulated market. When the Federal Reserve set interest rates below the market rate, that was not the free market at work. When the government went thru all this effort to pump credit into housing, that was not the free market at work either. When the Federal Reserve bailed out LTCM in 98 making it so that banks thought there was no risk lending to other banks, that wasn't the free market at work either. Having all new credit coming from fiat printed up money instead of savings isn't the free market at work either. They socialized the money, then they socialized the credit, then they socialized the risk, and now people are saying the "religion" of the free market has failed. Bullshit, the religion of socialism and central planning has.

Moral, when they beat the slaves on the plantation the problem wasn't the regulations on how you treat slaves, but the entire damn slavery system to begin with. Well, the same is true with fiat money and the Federal Reserve. The system was inherently designed to reward fraud and ez credit. Well, what the hell did people expect to happen?
October 12, 2008

blue ox babe said:

0
...
Bullshit, the religion of socialism and central planning has.


That's a bold declaration and it's unsupported by anything you offered in your post. So it's just a conclusion. And I don't see it having any application here, and surely it has none of the utility you seem to think it has. You've just scapegoated socialism without defining what it is, and without showing how it is responsible for any of the ills of the current American socioeconomic clusterfuggle.

There are various aspects of socialism at work here, but they do not disprove the ultimate value of socialism. When a system becomes socialized only partly -- as here, socializing only the risks and not including the rewards that flow from those risks -- then it is not a failure of socialism per se, but a failure of implementation.

Socialism is working quite well in several human communities around the world. So if you need practical proof of your assertion's flaws, you need only look at France's medical system, or Canada's medical system. You need only look at the Scandinavian Welfare Model, as described somewhat accurately by Wikipedia here --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...fare_model

America has yet to socialize many things of social benefit. To date most of its socialized efforts have been to benefit very small private minorities, and to benefit them in a financial or economic way, rather than in the areas of basic human needs. I would even argue that such socializing isn't even socialism, but rather, inverse socialism.
October 12, 2008

Septeus7 said:

0
RE: Uhh, this was a failure of socialism and central plan
They socialized the money, then they socialized the credit, then they socialized the risk, and now people are saying the "religion" of the free market has failed. Bullshit, the religion of socialism and central planning has.

Socialized money? Are you insane? The Fed is a semi-private institution and money created out of debt. The public doesn't own the banks that generate the debt so how is it socialized?

For you believers in the "free market", it can never fail because it never been done correctly just like Communism has never been tried either. Read the "Shock Doctrine" and you see how the policy actually works. You can't say "my ideas aren't wrong because I wouldn't have implemented them that way" rather you must judge Marx or Friedman by the policies they inspire and those policies have failed.

As for for the Free Market philosophy itself, the neuro-cognitive sciences have already refuted the whole of classical and neo-classical economics with fmris and cognitive mathematics. The assumption of the Free Market philosophy is people behave out of self interest defined by individual preferences but the physical examination of the human brains proves than humans CANNOT think this way rather social frames of reference exist prior to the determination of individual preference i.e. humans lean from their social interactions what is good and what they want as individuals not the other way around as the Economist's cult teaches. Exactly the opposite of what the Economist assume is the hard physical reality of the way our neurons are built to fire.

There has been no central planning in America because entire point of deregulation is allow those at the top do whatever they want without having to conform to a central plan in the belief that a direction will naturally arise in markets. And the direction was away from the public good and towards looting and tickle up economics which is why Wall-Street demanded cheap and easy credit from the Fed.

Its time get away for the extremist doctrines of Communist where every is about the collective and the "Free Market" where everything is individualistic. It time to get back to teaching of the old America economists and politicians like Benjamin Franklin (public libraries, science education , fire fighting), John Quincy Adams (canals, bridges, and roads), Henry Clay (fair trade and regulation), Friedrick List and Henry C Carey (railroads, industrial development, and economic nationalism against imperialist policies like free trade).

This isn't socialism this good old fashion American system dirigism and industrialism.
October 12, 2008

lordmisterford said:

1643
The power of analogy --
David C -- Analogy is a powerful tool. Your analogy is particularly powerful. I see it hulking, growling always, in the weird corner of society that we used to call "The Analogy Closet." It's potential is evident in the way it vibrates and hums, in the fumes that roll off of it. Can you smell 'em yet? I believe you'd better hie yourself off to the dictionary and look that one up. You've confused 'analogy' with 'anal-ogy', which is nothing to be ashamed of as it's a common mistake. The two terms are homonymic, you know, and because that's the case they've been trying to get married for years. Last I knew, homonymic unions are legal only in California (at Gov. Schwarzenegger's gym) and in Massachusetts (because nobody there knows one end from the other). Better take that one somewhere else.

J. Ford
October 12, 2008 | url

troll with the punches said:

0
...
blue ox babe

Point well made.

Money is debt.

Yes, in the end this entire thing is cyclical.

Government controls media and the unholy triumverate of government/corporation/media who are really all and one of the same, dictate what money is and how much or little of it we get.

The only thing that can change this is a restructuring of the system. Who knows? Maybe that really does lie ahead.

I seriously doubt it but a boy can dream ...


October 12, 2008

scott douglas said:

1740
...
Two barn-burners in one week, Mr. Floyd. Very impressive. This is better than Wounded Shark, and that essay made me weak.

To weigh in on the evolving comments: Who says what money is? Who commands? 25,000 years ago, did our ancestors decide that migrating with the food herds was unwise because of the burgeoning human competition? Did the big boys say, 'here we mark our stake!'? Was farming the beginning of all of this trouble? Once you settle, labour must be divided - not naturally, but rigidly. There will be defences to be built and organized war to be maintained against clans that continue to migrate, no? How will compliance with this unnatural scheme of labour be enforced? Once you have a settled agrarian economy, militarism and social class and elitism naturally evolve. Money is the trad-able symbol of compliance with the diktats of the rulers of any civil society, regardless of it's level of abstraction.

Personally, I would tell the Chief and his Henchmen to go 'F' themselves before I would hoard the tokens to buy my way into their circle. So I will be cast out soon and die on the street in the depression...

Today? Yesterday? What's the difference? The pretty 'shell' game just came down, that's all. Never meant a thing. It's a joke, and it always has been.

Unfortunately, there are six billion real human beings dependent on the continuation of the fantasy.

Oh, and the really funny part is this: a lot of anthropologists suggest that the original morph from hunter-gatherer to farmer was actually motivated not by competition, but only to be certain of a steady supply of - beer. ha.

Eat the Rich.

Love, Scott
October 12, 2008 | url

David C said:

0
RE: RE: Uhh, this was a failure of socialism and central plan
blue ox babe -- France isn't exactly a mecca model, those riots in France were an example of class divisions being created to prop up such systems. Anyhow, you will very very soon find out that the "Scandinavian" banks have more leverage than even the US does ... it just hasn't hit the fan over there yet.

Septeus7 -- The money is socialized because we are forced to pay income taxes in it. The credit was socialized because the banks were legally forced to make home loans to high risk families. The risk was socialized by the purchase of freddie and fannie. (but it was made into systemic risk by the fed telling the market not to worry about counter party risk) Also, there is a big difference between the "free market" extremists and the "communisim extremists", the free market "extremists" have managed to get useful results even with partial liberties. While some who promote free market philosophies only talk about "self interest", the truth is that it is not about self interest at all, but free will and liberty. And yes there is central planing in the USA, the central bank sets the interest rate and has authority over all the other banks by law.

The bottom line is that if liberty matters to you more than freebies at other peoples expense, then the fact that people were coerced to pay such high taxes and do business in money that was being watered down all the time matters, and this consequence was predictable and understandable.
October 13, 2008

Mark F. said:

0
Wrong!
The free market in its pure form is private property ownership and free trade and no government. The government controlled semi-socialist system we have is a world away from a true free market. People may call our current corrupt system a "free market," but so what? You can call me a girl, but I'm biologically a male.

The liberal/leftist fantasy is that if we only get the right people in office, we will get rid of all this ugly militarism and spend tax money to create a utopia.

But the fact is this: the government ruling class always spends money to benefit itself and its friends. Always has, always will. Therefore the government ruling class should be eliminated by eliminating the state. The government is nothing but a big mafia and one does not reform a mafia, one destroys it.

Believing in individual freedom, free markets and voluntary trade is not a cult---it's the only way civilized humans can ultimately live. Government is about coercion, pure and simple. You favor coercion, you favor the state.
October 13, 2008

jeff65 said:

0
Wake up!
The people backing the corporatist state and those backing the government state are the same people. They seek to achieve the same end by either path. Turning this into a left / right issue is pulling the wool over your own eyes.

An interesting trade would be to offer the free market fundamentalists their utopia in exchange for giving up any and all protections granted corporations under the 14th Amendment forever. If that offer were made we'd see exactly how fundamentalist the fundamentalists are. My guess is not very...
October 13, 2008

blue ox babe said:

0
...
David C, you said --

France isn't exactly a mecca model, those riots in France were an example of class divisions being created to prop up such systems. Anyhow, you will very very soon find out that the "Scandinavian" banks have more leverage than even the US does ... it just hasn't hit the fan over there yet.


I didn't say France was a mecca model, and I don't know why you struggle with the plain language of my post. I said it's an example of socialism working successfully. I didn't say it was an example of the finest implementation of socialism. I made no qualifications other than "successful."

As to your predictions on Nordic countries having financial issues, it would seem you want to ignore the ripples moving quickly outward, tsunami-style, from the clusterfuggle of free-market fiscal rape, by which I mean the tanking American economic system. Any failures in the Nordic Welfare Model states is not a failure of socialism, and I'd defy you to demonstrate how it is.

Not sure where you went to school, David, but where I went, emotional arguments don't carry any more water than a sieve. Arguments by implication or indirection fare even poorer. Let's just say that you've now commented twice about socialism, and in neither case was your comment substantially valid, logically sensible, or factually correct.

As to the comment of Mark F...

Mark, you make the same mistake many do who come here as pot-shotting trolls. You seem to think that Mr Floyd and his commenters are dimwitted liberals who support the clowns of the Democratic Party. I think you are in the wrong place, Mark. Your post fits better at some dimwit donkeybot outlet like Daily Kos. Here, it's quickly seen as just a silly straw-man argument, and nobody here cares much about the straw man's chances against your cheap shots.

If you can demonstrate how a society of more than 100 or so people can manage without government of any sort, while having private property rights paramount, I'd welcome your proofs. Thus far it hasn't worked on Earth. Maybe you have some science fiction stories to share to make your point for you, in some alternate world?
October 13, 2008

David C said:

0
RE: socialisim
blue ox babe -- You said "it's an example of socialism working successfully", the riots clearly demonstrated it wasn't. Your attitude is pathetic considering that you didn't 'define' socialism either. Also, you seem to be unaware that the typical European bank is much more secretive and leveraged at up to 50:1 instead of 30:1 typical in the US. The arrogant attitude that it was just the US system of "greed" that caused this demonstrates how clueless you are.

It seems that you are not only blissfully ignorant of the relation between fiat money and reckless credit expansion, but also deeply ignorant of the intimate relationship between fiat money and social programs. (Hint, how did you think those programs got paid for without raping the economy of it's current growth?) Using reckless credit expansion in the right hand to prop up social programs in the left is not what I'd define as successful.

Let's just say that you've now commented twice about socialism, and in neither case was your comment substantially valid, logically sensible, or factually correct.


Same to you.
October 13, 2008

littlehorn said:

1699
I had a hint
I knew this would elicit a lot of discussion. This is the point where the various oppositions to Bush break up.

Undeniably, banks were free when they were making huge amounts of money, out of nothing. Equally undeniably, the government did not stop the practice of subprime lending, which even Tom Tomorrow knew would lead to disaster. In fact, Congress voted laws that pushed banks to resort more to it.

So, there was freedom and intervention, both at the same time. Not central planning, and not anarchy either. Some relative portion of both. Will you pick one and blame everything on it ? If someone helps another person commit a murder, will you blame it all on that first person ? Won't the culprit also share responsibility ? In other words, if banks were so prompt to make so much money on nothing, and then have us pay the bills, and even if they were helped, encouraged in this by the government, doesn't that still show a reckless behaviour on their part ?

Now, the market supposedly is self-correcting. Libertarians say the culprits could be expelled, through declaring insolvency, and a new management would take over, and the practice would be eliminated. Nevertheless, it is said everywhere that bailing out the banks and giving huge loads of cash won't solve the problem. The problem is systemic. But then, how is the firing of the culprits going to put an end to the system that brought all this shit to bear ? Won't the new management also seek to profit from it ? I admit my lack of knowledge in economics, but I have problems seeing that.

Regardless of what you will judge as the source of the problem, we should all agree on one thing: there was an elite yesterday, there is an elite today, and if we're still stuck talking about what policy to blame, there'll be an elite tomorrow.

Regulations are concessions from the elites under the fear of a revolution, under the fear of the very end of their means of existence. Regulations, for the elites who make us poor, are only small hindrances, that they will get rid of in time, when they feel it is safe to do so.

In the end, I believe it does not matter in the least what you think is the most effective way of doing business, with or without government intervention, for this hides the elephant in the room: the top 1% that has no legitimacy at all.
October 13, 2008 | url

littlehorn said:

1699
La suite
The top 1% will profit from whatever policy you decide: government intervention, no government intervention. Anything that does not include the end of their illogical wealth will mean their strengthening.

Arthur Silber, make no mistake, is not on the intervention's side on this issue:
People with views across the political spectrum are unable to recognize the realities of American political and social history because those realities would fundamentally challenge the fable to which they are so devoted: conservatives cling to the notion that American progress and superiority are the result of free and unfettered capitalism, that is, the result of the operations of private business in an essentially laissez-faire environment, while liberals see the steady advance of America as due in significant part to the growing influence of the interests and wisdom of "the common people." As one result, both groups have the identical blind spot: both appear unable to fully appreciate the joining together of government power with certain influential (and usually exceedingly wealthy) private citizens and businesses. This combination, which began in the late nineteenth century, gathered force in the two decades following 1900, and was firmly cemented in place by World War I and then the New Deal, resulted in the creation of a class made up of the American elites. It is in these elites that almost all power is concentrated, both the power of the state and the power of the dominant private interests.
[...]
Today, most progressives bemoan the federal behemoth, at least insofar as its attacks on civil liberties are concerned, and yet their prescription is that we ingest more of the poison that has already almost killed us: still more government control and regulation. They have never understood that state power is always coopted by the most powerful vested interests for their own ends, and they still fail to grasp it today.
October 13, 2008 | url

Sariade said:

0
A most powerful essay Mr. Floyd
Here is another idea to ponder. Greed, and the corruption that comes of the relentless efforts to satisfy that greed are one of the hallmarks of the psychopath. So is power-seeking. I would venture to say that these two elements are basic components in the personality of 90% of the politicians in office today. So the actions you decry are almost predictable, if understood from this point of view. In the deepest sense, these people have no empathy for another. They don't care. The "little people" who are being hurt simply don't count; they don't even really exist.

There's even a term for the creeping rot that has overtaken society: "ponerization". It's derived from the greek word "poneros", meaning evil. It was coined by a Polish psychologist who studied the workings of Stalinism as a social order. Greed and corruption were rampant thre too. He studied the personalities of those who were attracted to this system and throve under it. What made them different? Dangerous work when you live inside the beast. It doesn't like being figured out. The book Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil www.ponerology.com goes more to explaining the craziness we are seeing more than any other book I've read.
October 13, 2008

lordmisterford said:

1643
...
Scott Douglas wrote "Oh, and the really funny part is this: a lot of anthropologists suggest that the original morph from hunter-gatherer to farmer was actually motivated not by competition, but only to be certain of a steady supply of - beer. ha."

Mr. Ford sez -- Maybe that's so but if it is, it's only because they hadn't yet discovered mushrooms and peyote and reefer.
October 13, 2008 | url

David C said:

0
regulations and banks
littlehorn -- the biggest tool of the elite is regulations, and fiat money certainly doesn't benefit the poor. People forget that regulations are different than just laws. If there was a law that said "fraud is punishable by X", I wouldn't have a problem with that, but that's not what they do. Instead they say you need x permit, y approval, c reports, d verification, and on and on and on. The whole process is ripe for corruption and manipulation and to lock out other alternatives and the regulations will never work in the long term because the government benefits from loose credit expansion more than anybody.

Also your concerns about the libertarian approach. In an honest money system, there is a limited amount of money which naturally limits irresponsible credit expansion, counter party risk, and most importantly investment capital must come from spendthrifts and producers, not from thin air. That changes the whole accountability dynamics. Investment tends to go into productive things (eg not houses) and capital allocation is prioritized to production instead of consumption, and all prices tend to go down over time instead of up. We live in a world with finite limits, it is impossible to allocate capital and investment responsibly when you have printed up capital without natural limits.

These people were rife with greed and fraud, but the system of fiat money rewarded that and punished producers and savers. What we have today was pre-destined to happen the very moment the Federal Reserve act passed in 1911. There is always greed, but there is not always systems that reward it at the expanse of savings and production. Once people understand how important honest money is (and they are starting to) then the greed problem can and will be controlled.
October 13, 2008

blue ox babe said:

0
...
David C's position -- If you support socialism, even in an academic debate fashion, you don't have a clue and you are arrogant.

Notice how his position attacks socialism as a vague concept, but never says what's wrong with it?

The "riots" in France demonstrate nothing about socialism. Of course David can't make any logical, rhetorical or factual proof connections between the riots and socialism, so that's why he uses implication.

And as his "proofs," he says I'm simply too dumb to see the truth.

That's not a proof. That's ad hominem argument, one which has nothing to do with proof, logic or rhetorical analysis.

Thanks for playing, David. Next time, try playing in the same game, and not setting up a parallel bogus game of 3-card Monte at which the rules are fixed and corrupted by you alone.
October 13, 2008

blue ox babe said:

0
...
PS to David C --

Your arguments on behalf of the Ghost of Milton Friedman don't have much traction. I'd task you with the same problem I gave to Mark F above.

Explain to us how a system using a private-property-centered, no-regulation, minarchist government will deal with human greed, acquisitiveness, envy, sloth, and all the other things that have corrupted capitalism thus far. How does libertarianism deal with those problems, David?

If you have any logical, factual or rhetorical skills, now would be the time to use them.
October 13, 2008

littlehorn said:

1699
I don't think so
Fiat money certainly created this mess. Nevertheless, as I said, the way we do business, the way we govern ourselves, isn't the problem.

I think you can agree that fiat money wouldn't be a problem today, if we didn't even have an elite. You wish we would return to the gold standard, but this would not change much. It is just like regulations, it might get a little more difficult for the 1%, but the fundamentals of our system, and the existence of the elite wouldn't be questioned.

Arthur Silber, in the essay quoted above, talks about how the regulations of the New Deal (and those of Woodrow Wilson before them) were implemented with the blessing of the already-vested interests. This is most clear in the title of the book he quoted, "The Triumph of Conservatism." But the blessing from those interests means there was already an elite at this time.

This tells me two things: regulations do not put an end to elites; and, they existed before regulations were implemented. In other words, your idea that if we return to non-intervention and the gold standard, which was, to my poor knowledge, the basic way of things before 1911, is false. These ways did not naturally erase the elite. But you say greed will be controlled. How ? We could not do so a century ago. What has changed since that time ?

The very existence of the elite implies the extortion of huge sums of money, and this in turn implies a grave inequality, that translates into the extortion of the democratic power of each citizen. The non-interventionism of the founding fathers could not create a lasting egalitarian population (was it even egalitarian to begin with ?), much less erase the inequalities, therefore the solution has to be elsewhere, instead of a return to the old ways.
October 13, 2008 | url

littlehorn said:

1699
Correction
In other words, your idea that if we return to non-intervention and the gold standard, which was, to my poor knowledge, the basic way of things before 1911, is false.

I meant to say: "your idea that if etc., greed would be controlled and there wouldn't be an elite, is false."
October 13, 2008 | url

blue ox babe said:

0
...
Interesting observations on Russia's "miracle free-market capitalism" and how it's working out for everyone involved:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15215

I'd love to hear those Ayn Randian followers of Ludwig von Mises explain how privatizing the government's services/assets would yield such great results, if Russia's privatization merely increases the gulf between a very few rich citizens and a very large number of poor Joe Average citizens.

Maybe David C and Mark F can explain things? David seems to think that observing another country's wrestling with economic schemes is "proof" of what will happen in America. Perhaps he can talk to us about Russia.
October 13, 2008

blue ox babe said:

0
...
littlehorn,

I think I understand your point, but here is a problem that I see in your response to David C.

It seems your analysis devolves to blaming "the elite," and traces all ills to that "elite." How is this any different from the paranoid bigotry that blames everything on the evil JOOOOOOS?

Are you suggesting there is an "elite" which acts monolithically? If so, who are these people, and by what means do they conduct themselves in a coordinated fashion?

Perhaps pointing to particular people in the USA might help amplify your point?
October 13, 2008

dae said:

1789
Socialism is Not Statism
Don't confuse socialism with the coercive role of the state. The capitalists will use the levers of state power to consolidate their rule over society and extract vast storehouses of wealth. The free market is a myth. Market fundamentalism is a myth. The capitalists have not deregulated markets but regulated them to their benefit. Please don't call that socialism. Socialism is when the levers of state power are in the hands of the producers not the overseers. Chris is absolutely right. The money was and is there. Its been expropriated by the monopoly imperialist financial capitalists to further their own class interests at the expense of everyone else. Political democracy without social democracy and economic democracy is a shame. We need a complete overhaul of our political system to make it truly representative. Can't go into how that can be accomplished here. Obviously we need to greatly enhance social democracy - universal health care and a free college education to begin with. But that can be done when the pressure is applied to force the ruling class to give up a small fraction of what its stolen. The key is economic democracy, in which all stakeholders have a seat on the board and public corporations are truly public with legislative representatives of the people, consumer advocates (NGOs) and workers sit and hold majority positions on the boards of directors. The major corporations are already largely socialized with government bailouts, guaranteed loans, tax breaks and mandates, but still controlled by capitalists who are only concerned with milking the corporations for whatever value they still possess. Small business and entrepreneurship can thrive under democratic market socialism that uses the market mechanism to promote rational sustainable levels of growth, production and consumption. It must be guided by public policy considerations that take into account social and planetary (ecological) welfare.
October 13, 2008

dmitried said:

0
Floyd's instant classic
Mr. Floyd,

I respectfully relinquish familiarity with the author of this working paper, "The God That Failed." It is beyond facile comment. It is "truth" for those open to it. The lucidity is deeply welcomed, and I pray there is room for a transcending appreciation, since there is here demonstrated an acuity as cold as ice.

Ed
October 13, 2008

David C said:

0
...
littlehorn -- I think society is always going to have an elite. The goal shouldn't be to "get" the elite, but to maximize liberties of the individuals. Any system that has the power to get the elites, will have 10 times the power to crush the individual and be 10 times more vulnerable to being co-opted, it's just best to focus everything around individual liberties. It's a lot harder for the elites to siphon off money for themselves and get into wars all over the planet when they need real money and the government is limited.
October 13, 2008

Mark F. said:

0
...
Try reading Murray Rothbard's "For A New Liberty" if you want to know how an anarcho-capitalist system might function. It's too difficult to explain in a short blog post. Please note that anarcho-capitalism is not utopian. It may be hard to implement, as a practical matter, but statism fails constantly. Of course, going to a non-statist system requires that people change how they think. It can't be imposed.

And I am not suggesting that Mr. Floyd is like one of the usual idiots at DailyKos. But he does believe big government would be great if we just got the right people in.
October 13, 2008

Mark F. said:

0
...
Socialism is not statism

Socialism is when the levers of state power are in the hands of the producers not the overseers.

First you contradict yourself. If you believe in state power, you are a statist. Geez!

Oh, and these new people with their hands on the levers are not then the new overseers? Nonsense.

A state means you have the rulers and the ruled. Everyone can't be a ruler.
October 13, 2008

littlehorn said:

1699
This isn't what I have in mind
I think society is always going to have an elite. The goal shouldn't be to "get" the elite, but to maximize liberties of the individuals. Any system that has the power to get the elites, will have 10 times the power to crush the individual and be 10 times more vulnerable to being co-opted, it's just best to focus everything around individual liberties.

I'm not talking about "getting" the elite, like lining them against a wall, or stealing their money or something. Kings have been assassinated in the name of justice (by, say, opposing factions) long before the concept of monarchy was destroyed. To steal their wealth or kill them would not destroy the mindset that made their way of life possible. The USSR is a prime example of that.
What I'm aiming at is not a change in structure, it's a change in what we consider to be acceptable, and what we consider to be ridiculous. I would hope that guys with billions of dollars would be considered ridiculous and impossible. But it is viewed as normal. You say it yourself: that's how it is, that's how it'll always be.
But how do some guys become extremely rich ? Is it through their own extremely hard work ? A hard work that is, according to the numbers, a hundred thousand times better, more important, more clever, more anything you want- than that of the ordinary american ? I think we can agree it is not. No, they just happen to belong to the class that will get the most money, or maybe they got really very lucky. It's a matter of culture. In today's culture, CEO's (for instance) are paid millions, even though they're not semi-gods.
If you say that elites will always exist, then you consider the current culture, and what it allows to happen, to be normal. Or adjustable through structure reform.
October 14, 2008 | url

littlehorn said:

1699
A quick word to blue ox babe 2nd version
Well the current system is really a pain in the a**. The first time I wrote a long comment to reply to blue ox babe's accusations. -> Moderator. The second time I wrote a summary of that reply, without spelling the J word. -> Moderator. I hate this censorship.
Each human being is unique. Draw all the conclusions necessary.
October 14, 2008 | url

byronstover said:

1731
...
David C.: "...The credit was socialized because the banks were legally forced to make home loans to high risk families...."

oh really? got any proof of that? or just spouting right-wing bullshit
October 14, 2008

420 said:

0
BRAVO!!!
Bravo Chris! I'm sharing this one far and wide.
October 14, 2008

blue ox babe said:

0
...
to Mark F:

1) Rothbard = von Mises = Hayek = Rand = nonsense. Murray Rothbard has no explanation for how to curtail greed, envy, acquisitiveness, theft, confidence gaming, usury, fraud, deception. Like his hero Ayn Rand, Rothbard thinks that regulation is what causes those negative traits. Like his hero Ayn Rand, Rothbard sees the world as either/or, in all aspects. Therefore everyone's either a heroic individualist, or a lowly criminal -- and what's worse, Rothbard (like Rand) thinks that negative human traits are caused by government and regulation. There's no proof, not even circumstantial evidence, of Rothbard's thesis being correct.

2) I think Mr Floyd is capable of telling us his views on government, and as I've been reading him for several years I've seen him tell us his thoughts for those aspects of government. Your summary of his view is only your personal opinion, and I'd suggest it's far afield.

October 14, 2008

Uncle Joe said:

0
Amazing to see the naivety of belief in the reality of 'democracies'....... Poor fools..
"Public spending on anything other than making war, threatening war and profiting from war was pared back or eliminated. Such public spending that did remain was forever under threat and derided, like the remnants of some pagan faith surviving in isolated backwaters."

Clearly they didn't do a very good job, since world population hasn't declined from nearly enough killing..... there are still over 6 BILLION POEPLE ON THE PLANET, BREEDING LIKE RABBITS ON VIAGRA....

"Year after year, the ordinary citizens were told by their governments: we have no money to spend on your needs, on your communities, on your infrastructure, on your health, on your children, on your environment, on your quality of life. We can't do those kinds of things any more."

IF The 'ordinary' citizens are so moronically STUPIDLY DUMB, NOT TO KNOW THAT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF TAXATION IS INFLATIONARY RIPOFF, AND INSIST ON PAYING TAXES, RATHER THAN SUPPORTING A NON-INCOME TAXATION SYSTEM.... AND DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR SLAVE AND CANNON FODDER BREEDING BEHAVIOUR..........

It's amazing to read articles by people who seem to think that at some point in time such a thing as a 'DEMOCRACY' existed ANYWHERE ON THIS PLANET.........

THAT IS SO *&^&#xIN;G HILARIOUS.... MORONICALLY STUPID AND NAIVE.... WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN STICKING YOUR BRAINCELLS?

'DEMOCRACY' HAS ALWAYS BEEN NOTHING MORE THAN A DEMOCKERY -- A SMALL GROUP OF OLIGARCHS RUNNING A COUNTRY, PROVIDING THE PRETENCE THAT 'THE PEOPLE' ARE IN CHARGE....

IT IS ONLY 'LIBERALS' AND 'PROGRESSIVES' WHO INSIST ON THE PERPETUATION OF 'DEMOCRACIES'.... EITHER BECAUSE THEY ARE SO MORONICALLY STUPID AND NAIVE, OR BECAUSE THEY ENDORSE THE SYSTEM OF THEFT..

VERY FEW 'LIBERALS' DEMAND A RETURN TO A 'REPUBLIC' -- THAT INDEED DID ONCE EXIST.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN A REPUBLIC AND A DEMOCKERY?

HMMMMMMMMMMM I WON'T HOLD MY BREATH...
October 14, 2008 | url

blue ox babe said:

0
...
Uncle Joe, you make some good points, but I think you fail to understand your audience, as it seems you accuse the audience of failing to understand the fraudulent nature of "democracy" in America. That argument is better directed toward, and posted at blogs maintained by, the people who insist on sticking to the Repub/Dem dynamic and leaving the current American system of government unchanged. You know, places where people say that we should "work within the system," places where people support Obama and McCain, places where people supported John Edwards and John Kerry and Al Gore.
October 14, 2008

littlehorn said:

1699
Well, it's not coming it seems
It seems your analysis devolves to blaming "the elite," and traces all ills to that "elite." How is this any different from the paranoid bigotry that blames everything on the evil JOOOOOOS?
Are you suggesting there is an "elite" which acts monolithically? If so, who are these people, and by what means do they conduct themselves in a coordinated fashion?

I think enough time has passed to know that my two previous comments will not be published. There was nothing wrong with them. It is very saddening to see that there is such a censorship here.

The reasons the ideology you talk about is wrong: the members of this religion do not hold all the positions of power, not even close; most of them are just as rich as you and me; race describes the loosely common traits, to attach meaning to something physical is the most foolish of things, even more so if that meaning is a conspiracy.
But you say my view is false for another reason: there could never be any kind of plot. Because the ideology you quote is wrong, anything that resembles it is wrong as well.
Blaming the elite is not taking the short road and ignoring things along the way. How many times has the government obeyed the population in this country, against the will of the elite, and how many times did that lead to disaster ? I can't remember any time this happened. Rather, I think of the thousands of times people were told it had to be this way, so they can be told 20 years later that they still have to give up more. And more. And still more.
As for the elite acting monolithically, this is the common defense the elite and those who believe in it will offer: to inflate the accusations so as to make them look ridiculous; and to always mention the inflated accusations instead of the accusations themselves. I never said that the elite conducted itself in a coordinated fashion. There are factions in that elite, and they don't believe in the same things, much less act and speak the same way.
Yet, through all their natural differences, there is one constant: the elite can not care about us. The decisions they take will always be distorted by this. This is why we are the first to suffer, and they are the last; and this is why an elite ruling any nation makes no sense at all. It does not make more sense than the monarchy.
As for who they are, I don't have a list. What defines an elitist is usually his extreme -and therefore un-natural- level of wealth.
October 15, 2008 | url

Septeus7 said:

0
...
Septeus7 -- The money is socialized because we are forced to pay income taxes in it.

Sigh...we are forced to pay income taxes because the government must pay the interest on the bonds it issues to have PRIVATE BANKS issue the credit. If money where socialized i.e. credit was created by government and own by the public and not BANKS then we would have to pay no income taxes just like the Greenback system before the British Banksters destroyed it.

"The credit was socialized because the banks were legally forced to make home loans to high risk families."

That is a lie. The CRA requires no banks make any loans at all. See http://distributism.blogspot.c...-poor.html.

The risk was socialized by the purchase of freddie and fannie.

Freddie and Fannie are private for profit institutions. They are not the government so they decided to play the market like any other business. How can you say they "socialized" anything when they are PRIVATE institutions?

but it was made into systemic risk by the fed telling the market not to worry about counter party risk)

You seem to think this is about mortgages and you are wrong. This a failure of the derivatives market which the Fed specially told everyone there would be no regulation i.e. a total free market. See here http://www.washingtonpost.com/...03343.html

Also, there is a big difference between the "free market" extremists and the "communisim extremists", the free market "extremists" have managed to get useful results even with partial liberties.

You mean like useful like Argentina or maybe Pinochet because they liked Senior Hayek's "El Model"? What results? " Personal Computers?" Haha they are result of NASA research. Nuclear Power the result of the
Manhattan Project, The Internet? Darpa. There is nothing that exists in this world since the Neolithic period that is the result of market forces alone except possibly derivatives which are currently cause of the crisis hence my argument.

While some who promote free market philosophies only talk about "self interest", the truth is that it is not about self interest at all, but free will and liberty.

Apparently you've never read Mandeville, Ricardo, Say or Bentham. Private Vice ,Public virtue? Why don't you read the original writings of the creators classical political economy and see that they where nothing more than apologist for British Imperialism just today's "free marketers" are just the same. The British where bringing "civilization" to the "savages" and we are bringing "democracy and free markets."

And yes there is central planing in the USA, the central bank sets the interest rate and has authority over all the other banks by law.

This is not socialism but old fashioned strong armed capitalism. Private Capital buying politicians to destroy competition and rigging the rules to their favor. No different from the Games Laws, seizing of Guild lands, or the East India Company killing off the natives with Hessians and installing puppet government and seizing traditional farming lands. The Congress didn't get idea to hand its power over money to private banks on its own. It was " players from the market" who believed in "market control" who created this system.

The Fed was not authored in Congress by representatives of the people in responding to a socialist uprising and you are insane to think it socialist in anyway. It was authored in a private elitist resort named Jekyll Island.

The bottom line is that if liberty matters to you more than freebies at other peoples expense, then the fact that people were coerced to pay such high taxes and do business in money that was being watered down all the time matters, and this consequence was predictable and understandable.

People are force to pay high taxes because money is private and loaned with usury to the government. If the government created social credit instead of monetizing the debt held against it then no taxes would be needed pay the interest on such debt.

The facts are that the so called "freebies" where created because of the capitalist first in the form of Poor Laws as result of the destruction of the yeoman farming system by the capitalist system. The history is very clear. The more people rely on the market for everything then more the government action is eventually needed enforce the redistribution of wealth upwards and revolutionary movements are quelled with welfare programs to keep the poor from taking back the wealth created by their labor hence Wall Street found Obama as a new face for an old system.

Yeah, he'll throw us a few rhetorical bones and few tax cuts and tell about austerity and make us feel good about voting for a black man when sending freshly drafted troops into Africa making even more "free markets and democracies." Its so sick.

Chris knows it, Arthur Silber knows it, even a former Neocon dummy like myself knows it. I actually owe Chris a lot because he was one of the guys who woke me up from my MSM induced coma about 3 years ago. Chris is one of few guys who can pick up a pen and jump start a dead conscience in some folks (myself included).

October 16, 2008

blue ox babe said:

0
...
littlehorn,

I think you've paraphrased me inaccurately, or misunderstood me, because I'm confused by this part of your most recent post:

The reasons the ideology you talk about is wrong: the members of this religion do not hold all the positions of power, not even close; most of them are just as rich as you and me; race describes the loosely common traits, to attach meaning to something physical is the most foolish of things, even more so if that meaning is a conspiracy.
But you say my view is false for another reason: there could never be any kind of plot. Because the ideology you quote is wrong, anything that resembles it is wrong as well.


I haven't said your view is false. I was trying to make the following point, and this point only:

If one plays reductio ad absurdum with causation, and thereby finds every malefaction attributable to a single group, then you're not going to succeed in convincing me, because I don't believe that groups of people act monolithically.

As an example of my point on no monolithic action, I have the following: in political discussion forums where there are participants from all over the world, I've often encountered people who take Americans to task for the policies of its government. I find this problematic not just because I'm not the king who runs America's government, but also because it's ludicrous to think that all Americans have behaved in a coordinated fashion to authorize the US Govt to behave as it has been behaving for, oh... let's say since the Vietnam War. On most issues of concern to me, the US Government behaves nearly exactly opposite how I would ask it to behave. To blame me for its operation is ridiculous. It assumes facts not in the record.

Likewise, you can't convince me that a religion has caused selfishness or greed. The religion may provide cover excuses for behavior which amounts to selfishness or greed, but it is the individual actor who purveys selfishness and greed, not the religion to which he allegedly belongs and under the principles of which he supposedly conducts himself at all times.

At Information Clearing House one can find all manner of Jew-baiter and Jew-hater. For these people, inasmuch as most are laughably ignorant, it takes no more than what they consider a "Jewish-sounding name" to implicate someone as a font of evil. Such "thinking" is incredulous. Most of the Jewish people I've known in my 47 years haven't cared a whit about greed, most have been relatively poor themselves. None was an apologist for Israel's murderous behavior toward Palestine, none was a Zionist, none believed him- or her-self superior by virtue of childhood indoctrination into Judaism.

So I won't accept the whole rhubarb about evil JOOOOOOOS, littlehorn. And I doubt any thinking person will.

As to "elites," the only thing that unites anyone under that category is a few simple traits:

1) In a position of authority over governmental power, or over economic power, in ways that can affect average citizens.

2) Exercises that power preferentially, rather than holistically. Tends to prefer grants of authority or economic right/wealth to those similarly situated, not those who have less power or fewer economic resources.

3) Tends to want to keep the situation as I just described, and resists all attempts at levelling the playing grounds.
October 16, 2008

blue ox babe said:

0
...
Septeus7, I liked what you said earlier:


Its time get away for the extremist doctrines of Communist where every is about the collective and the "Free Market" where everything is individualistic. It time to get back to teaching of the old America economists and politicians like Benjamin Franklin (public libraries, science education , fire fighting), John Quincy Adams (canals, bridges, and roads), Henry Clay (fair trade and regulation), Friedrick List and Henry C Carey (railroads, industrial development, and economic nationalism against imperialist policies like free trade).

This isn't socialism this good old fashion American system dirigism and industrialism.


Your more recent post above is a good one too. Thanks.
October 16, 2008

littlehorn said:

1699
Alright, but looks like you didn't read everything
If one plays reductio ad absurdum with causation, and thereby finds every malefaction attributable to a single group, then you're not going to succeed in convincing me, because I don't believe that groups of people act monolithically.

I also said I didn't say the elite acted monolithically:
As for the elite acting monolithically, this is the common defense the elite and those who believe in it will offer: to inflate the accusations so as to make them look ridiculous; and to always mention the inflated accusations instead of the accusations themselves. I never said that the elite conducted itself in a coordinated fashion. There are factions in that elite, and they don't believe in the same things, much less act and speak the same way.
Yet, through all their natural differences, there is one constant: the elite can not care about us. The decisions they take will always be distorted by this.
October 17, 2008 | url

blue ox babe said:

0
...
littlehorn,

We are probably disagreeing over minutiae, then, if you emphasize those points. I would surely agree that from where I sit, those I'd consider "elite" do not give an unholy fugg about me. Nor about anyone else in my socioeconomic situation. What they care about is themselves, and those like themselves. I would say, for example, that Dick Cheney is an "elite" because his role as VPOTUS has been (1) to enrich himself and others who are invested in Halliburton/KBR (and their offshoots), and (2) to set the stage for making it impossible to find illegality anything Bush/Cheney did, by transforming the nature of government and fictionalizing the purpose of American law -- turning it into a vehicle to oppress average citizens and to protect the profiteers.

But I'll continue to rail against anyone who tries to blame evil JOOOOOOOOOS, as that's just pathetic hateful ignorance on display.
October 17, 2008

littlehorn said:

1699
And rail you should
I'm not saying you shouldn't...So where do we disagree again ?
October 17, 2008 | url

John Hughes said:

0
Thirty year of Power is being slammed into the Mayan Period of Ethics
What you are seeing, is power now being regulated by the period of ethics, as laid forth by the Mayan Calendar, which is a completely accurate timing model of consciousness. As a global architect and adept of mystical traditions, I'm following all of this closely and it is truly right on schedule.

The point I choose to make here, is that, given this forward march of consciousness toward universal consciousness in 2012, the time of the ruling elite is past, they can not now go back to business as usual, for the veils have been pulled back and they are fully exposed to the masses (think wizard of Oz here) where as before only a few understood and to tell your family and friends was like talking to the wall.

So, what will be fun to watch going forward is the futility of these globalist to work the gears and dials in plain view. As the world in the past has been fueled by blind obedience of the collective unconscious, it can no longer be so as we move headlong into 2012. Try telling your kids to do something in complete hypocrisy of your behavior and see how much compliance you get.

I hope you all get the point.
October 20, 2008

Legazpi said:

0
...
What a naive article!

An infinite amount of "money" has always been available to all governments that use fiat currency. All they need to do is switch on their printing machines and keep printing more of the stuff, which is what the governments who have promised to bail out their banks with trillions of dollars will eventually have to do. Of course this will cause inflation and devalue their currencies accordingly, thus meaning that in terms of value, the extra money was never really there in the first place. What this ultimately means is that we'll end up paying for this through inflation. The idea that all this money has always been around and could have been used spent without causing inflation shows a very basic misunderstanding of economics.
October 23, 2008

Espides said:

0
Hear hear
You're absolutely right when it comes to the government's priorities. We've blown LOADS of money on the military -- especially the war in Iraq -- that should have been used for schools, roads, museums, and other purposes. This is self evident. The problem is the Reagan/Thatcher view that the poor are somehow morally suspect, and shouldn't be provided with services paid for by government money. Obama's going to take us past that, as more people realize that if your fellow citizens are hungry, sick or uneducated, this affects your own quality of life as well. And this isn't socialism, you numnuts, this is humanitarianism.
October 29, 2008

DL602 said:

0
...
Your inability to grasp even basic economic concepts is amazing. This is no money just sitting around. The money currently being used is money that is being borrowed and will have to be repaid by future generations. The Democrats continuously focus on the debt increases of the Bush administration, but they completely ignore the future commitments that are owed for Social Security and Medicare. Both of these programs were created under Democratic administrations and will cost our country tens of trillions in the future and we have no way to pay for them. As a journalist, you have failed once again by viewing an issue with blinders on and writing an article that shows how little you know. I'm amazed your editor allowed this to be published.
February 10, 2009

LanceThruster said:

2117
...
I keep coming back to this article on a regular basis because I find it so compelling. I think Chris's point is that there are ways to find money for the things that the government says 'need' to be done, but it always seemed to dismiss actual needs (as Chris listed in the piece) as 'luxuries.'

Did we need to spend billions (trillions?) on illegal wars, and bailing out crooked banks, insurance, and investment institutions at the expense of undeniably useful projects? I think the answer is clear.

The foxes are gutting the hen house and blaming the hens for allowing the foxes to guard them. In a sense, they are correct in that regard.
March 11, 2009

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy
Last Updated on Saturday, 11 October 2008 23:04