the main problem with the globe

25 posts / 0 new
Last post
Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
the main problem with the globe

I picked this item from the 6/6 DD where I was going to reply, but thought it deserved its own thread.....

hunt4riches wrote:

I see the main problem with the globe to be over population combined with socialism, dictatorship and communism.

I read this last night before going to bed (local Australian time..) and gave it a lot of thought....  and I hope this post doesn't turn into a long rambling raving discourse, because in my opinion this statement just over simplifies things.  Remember, we live in a complex world..

No problem with over population, surely any follower of this site wouldn't be "here" if they couldn't see it.  But I'm afraid you left out another ism, and that's capitalism.  WHY I see ALL the "isms" as problems is because none of them are perfect, and far far from it....  Just like Humans really...

With over population, I would lay on the table the other big issue - over consumption, and capitalism encourages over consumption.  At the expense of perhaps yet again getting up Americans' noses, it's no surprise that the most Capitalistic country on Earth, the USA, is the one where over consumption is most rampant.  Before any of you get on your high horses, I am not saying this as criticism, it's merely an observation.  Worse, this culture of "big cars and McMansions" is spreading all over the world (well maybe not any more..), marketed by US styled advertising.  I see this happening here in Australia.  And I don't like it!

Americans just love their capitalism, this is obvious after following this site for nearly three years.  Yet, I now realise, there are loads of socialists there too, I have been following some of them, with some admiration I might add, because you have to be very courageous to be a socialist in America!

The reason there are different isms is because people are different.  Some, (like hunt4riches maybe?  I have to tell you I think that is an odd screen name that maybe one day you could explain to us...) have an inate drive to acquire power and wealth.  Others (yes, like ME!!) couldn't give a stuff about how much they own or how much they are worth.  Why anyone should feel entitled to own more than one of everything (and here I'm particularly thinking of big ticket items like houses and SUV's) is beyond me.....

hunt4riches wrote:

More or less of one of one or the other depending on where you hold the magnifying glass.  Right now we have to produce X (but need Z, and Z>X) to sustain Y.  Those who produce X are overworked and under compensated.  Most of the Y earn or produce nothing, and become the burden of the producers of X.  The producers of X slowly decide to simply 'stop working' because it is not worth a 12-hour-day effort for only a 4-hour-day return.  I joined the boat this year.  I no longer "work for the system".  I make my own money dealing rare coins, I pay what I believe to be a fair amount of taxes (and lets not sidetrack on that note...).  Seeing that close to 30% of my salary was being misappropriated through our failing system, I decided enough as enough, and just quit.  Now living off my savings, and the land.  It's amazong how many vegetables you can grow on a 6' x 12' balcony.

OK, so far so good.......  but maybe you'd like to explain just who is represented by X, Y, and Z.......?  I no longer work for the Matrix either, but I've rebooted my life so money is not so important, and in fact once TSHTF I am fairly sure I could live without any.  If you still need money, then I'm afraid you are still inside the system, because the system is all about money.  Trust me, living outside the Matrix is bloody hard, because just like in the movie it is everywhere.....

hunt4riches wrote:

Though I believe people have the right to live, I do NOT believe they have the right to unlimited medical care at the expense of others.  It should be strictly up to those with a surplus to donate, so that the "have nots" can "have".  Besides, where's the free healthcare for the 10,000 africans who probably died of starvation in africa while I wrote this?  Who were responsible to provide this to them?  who was gioing to work to provide the resources?

Good question.......  but you see, I could turn this around on you and say "I do NOT believe they have the right to unlimited home and car and and and and.... ownership".  Plus, I don't see many rich people "donating" enough to keep the poor going.  Otherwise there wouldn't be poor people!

hunt4riches wrote:

I think food stamps are a complete waste.  80% of the value of the stamps goes towards consumer advertising and packaging.  Sorry, but if you need food assistance - you get the basics.  Butter, flower, eggs, cheese, peanut butter.  Guess what?  YOU'RE POOR !!!  You don't get steak, cookies, chips and candy bars!

So your measure of well being is "steak, cookies, chips and candy bars"?  I'm amazed........

hunt4riches wrote:

Flipping the coin... let's face it, a taxless society doesn't move very fast. But a 50-60% taxed society moves even slower. 

We need slow.....  we need zero growth.  We need to change the way EVERYTHING is done, and getting hung up on taxation is plain silly.  If you don't like paying taxes, then live a tax free life!  I have almost achieved this now...  For instance, there's much talk about a Carbon Tax at the moment in Australia, but I have worked out that a $26/ton tax on our electricity consumption would add $4 a year to my tax burden...

hunt4riches wrote:

That's where we are today.  If low taxes means more open-road tolling, fine.  "if you use it, pay for it"  ...    that's how everything else on the planet works.  The maximim efficiency of an economy can only be as high as the percentage of non-government workers.  I'd say right now we're clacking on only two cylinders.  Something tells me when one of these goes, the last one remaining just won't cut it.

Post Peak Oil there won't be any cylinders.  Hunt, this is your fourth post here.  I don't think you "get" the Crash Course yet.  Go do it again please.

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1325
The US is not capitalistic.
Damnthematrix wrote:

Americans just love their capitalism, this is obvious after following this site for nearly three years.  Yet, I now realise, there are loads of socialists there too, I have been following some of them, with some admiration I might add, because you have to be very courageous to be a socialist in America!

This is where you are so completely out of touch with reality.  It may be called "capitalism" but it's not what we have in the US.  Just look at the basis for everything, the USD (Federal Reserve Note).  What are the mandates of the Fed:

[quote=Federal Resever Act]

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

Tell me, are any of those 3 stated goals capitalistic?  They sure all seem socialist to me.  And just like any socialist society, the US will fail because you eventually run out of productive members of the society to plunder.

 

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1325
Aren't you being just a bit misleading, leaving out a few facts?
Damnthematrix wrote:

For instance, there's much talk about a Carbon Tax at the moment in Australia, but I have worked out that a $26/ton tax on our electricity consumption would add $4 a year to my tax burden...

Ahh, just like any good socialist, you got yours from pludering others.  You've commented about how low your electric bill is because you plunder others to pay for it via massive solar subsidies.  Then you use the fact that your bill is ultra low to point out how little impact a carbon tax would have on you. Surprised

 

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
"there are loads of

"there are loads of socialists there too, I have been following some of them, with some admiration I might add,"

 For someone who does not like guns, you sure like to use them to force people to do what you think is good. (indirectly by using the govt that is).

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Huh?

Really? The US is not Capitalistic? It’s just hilarious listening to the sincere protestations that what we really need is more Capitalism in America, because you know, what just happened to us in 2008, you see, this had nothing to do with Capitalism.

And here is where the tut-tut-tut and finger wagging starts, the hands begin waving and gesticulating widely, and  pronouncements are held forth that what we are seeing is not capitalism at all, no, it is (insert –ism of choice, preferably as a pejorative).

Now, a reasonably competent 8th grade civics student could discern that what passes for political economy in our country has about as much in common with Adam Smith’s version of Wealth of Nations as the William Burroughs’ Naked Lunch, but the reasons why this is so requires us to be informed by history, which tells us clearly, and unequivocally that Capitalism:

-         Inherently, and unavoidably ALWAYS results in centralization and consolidation of capital and other resources, providing fewer choices and reduced freedom to the consumer.

-         Resorts to coercive laws of competition, which ALWAYS requires a growth imperative in order to sustain itself. ONE of symptoms which manifests is the creation of money through convenient quasi corporate/government mergers such as the Federal Reserve Bank, to create a reliable, unfettered supply of CAPTIAL to guess who- the Capitalists.

-         Requires ceaseless expansion of markets to maintain the aforementioned growth imperative using military means if necessary,

-         Requires ceaseless expansion of labor markets to bias surplus value away from the domestic worker, usually presented as a response to regulatory overhang which serves two purposes; a.) It creates a pressure point to reduce domestic regulation of capitalist endeavor, and b.) Provides a plausible excuse as to why all the jobs are disappearing and the ones that remain are at McDonalds.

-         Requires ceaseless expansion in the pursuit of raw materials and other essential resources, using military means if necessary.

-         When consolidated capital reaches a critical mass of assemblage, the target elevates to Government entities, resulting in regulatory and legislative capture, all in pursuit of an unfair playing field to further the profitability of the multi-nationals.

-         Capture of the mainstream media to propagandize the messaging in support of initiatives, ideologies, and political candidates sympathetic to the corporatist agenda.

-         Structural and pathological inability to act a priori with respect to resource allocation, proper regulatory oversight for dangerous for-profit activities, and irresponsible deferral of even basic human rights in pursuit of a profit motive.

Roll all of this up (and more)  and wrap it with a popular culture based entirely on narcissism and Objectivist fiction, and you net out a belief system in the populace that tries, in vain, to support this monstrosity by:

-         Insisting that the only obstacle to getting yours is hard work and honest behavior, which will overcome all adversity.

-         Trying to use inappropriate deduction reasoning methods to deduce why it’s all going wrong.

-         Refusing to recognize even the most obvious of all observations, that the decline of capitalism is intrinsic, and is not caused by external forces, nuances of monetary systems, or governmental overreach. Rather, and here it comes, naively conflating cause with effect, e.g. government policies (some quite destructive) which  are a RESPONSE (and NOT a CAUSE) to an unstable and wilding gyrating free market system that is perpetually on the verge of catastrophic collapse, and left unfettered, will in fact collapse, and catastrophically, EVERY TIME.

-         Valorizing the use of capital, elevating those that exploit others successfully to rock star status, and hold forth those as a shining example of what to aspire to.

-         Denying any effects of global warming or climate change because to do so would recognize an expansion limit, and capital abides no limits. Note the ENTIRE elected field of Republican Representatives and Senators has taken the position against global warming and climate change. Every one.

-         Denying any meaningful environmental consideration, see reasons above.

-         Demonizing the underclass as slovenly, lazy, and undeserving of any middle class existence.

And last, but certainly not least, the compete denial that the sequential assembly of the aforementioned factors leads us from Adam Smith’s 1776 writing to exactly where we are today, every single time.

But other than those minor quibbles- it’s a great system.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Aren't you being just a bit misleading, leaving out a few facts?
rhare wrote:
Damnthematrix wrote:

For instance, there's much talk about a Carbon Tax at the moment in Australia, but I have worked out that a $26/ton tax on our electricity consumption would add $4 a year to my tax burden...

Ahh, just like any good socialist, you got yours from pludering others.  You've commented about how low your electric bill is because you plunder others to pay for it via massive solar subsidies.  Then you use the fact that your bill is ultra low to point out how little impact a carbon tax would have on you. Surprised

No rhare....  our power bills are in credit not just because we have subsidised PVs, but because we only consume 2.2 kWh/day.  I know plenty of people with 3.5 kW of solar on their roof who STILL have to pay for power because their consumption is so excessive.......

Even if we had no solar power, our bills would be $42 a quarter.  And our C tax would amount to $4 a year.

And in any case, I got the subidies because they were on offer, I just played the game.....

Mike

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Aren't you being just a bit misleading, leaving out a few facts?
rhare wrote:
Damnthematrix wrote:

For instance, there's much talk about a Carbon Tax at the moment in Australia, but I have worked out that a $26/ton tax on our electricity consumption would add $4 a year to my tax burden...

Ahh, just like any good socialist, you got yours from plundering others.  You've commented about how low your electric bill is because you plunder others to pay for it via massive solar subsidies.  Then you use the fact that your bill is ultra low to point out how little impact a carbon tax would have on you. Surprised

 

Rhare,

it's all swings and round-a-bouts, or bread and circus's for the masses my friend. Just like the $1.5 trillion dollars from half the US income-tax bill that promotes a socialised military. From a country that uses the magnanimity of digitally created out of thin air dollars to pay for the scarce resources from foreign lands via wistful use of entropy and entrapment, that in many cases were taken first by "coup d'état" - also known as "Coup", "Putsch" or "Overthrow" - in other words by using (legalised?) "Illegal Force" and the way of the "Plunderer" State, by setting standards by laws that are (so far at least) bent in your favour.

Three quarters of the energy burnt in the States today was gotten there over time - mostly at the point of a gun - so that you could be a part of the party that became wealthy enough to afford the sustainable solar system that supplied the hot shower you bathed in, and the burned toast you ate for breakfast this morning.

Welcome to the bigger picture. Any which way you look at it, it's called hypocrisy, and if you dig as deep as this, that includes me too ...

Save your chide, I'm laughing too loud ... Laughing... !!!

~ VF ~

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Huh?
darbikrash wrote:

Really? The US is not Capitalistic? It’s just hilarious listening to the sincere protestations that what we really need is more Capitalism in America, because you know, what just happened to us in 2008, you see, this had nothing to do with Capitalism.

<SNIP>

But other than those minor quibbles- it’s a great system.

Thanks for that......  a much better reply than I would've mustered!  Americans have the Capitalism they deserve.  Capitalists way back in 1913 decided this, and now you have to live with it.  I prefer to deal with reality, or reality deals with you.

Mike

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace

Darbikrash,

Mannnn!!!! Brilliant, just brilliant!!!!!!

I was writing my last post while you sent yours in!!!!

I needn't bother linking you to my latest Adam Curtis thread I created today. You could just as well be he himself!!!!!!

Much Respect,

~ VF ~

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
doing the right thing at gunpoint?
gregroberts wrote:

"there are loads of socialists there too, I have been following some of them, with some admiration I might add,"

 For someone who does not like guns, you sure like to use them to force people to do what you think is good. (indirectly by using the govt that is).

Not this again.........  Greg, I frankly don't care what you think.  I wasn't going to reply to this inflamatory post and even considered flagging it, but AFAIC, people who don't "do what [I] think is good" will simply not survive.

I don't need a gun, that's why I don't have one.  please go away.

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1325
If you say something enough does it become true?
Damnthematrix wrote:

Thanks for that......  a much better reply than I would've mustered!  Americans have the Capitalism they deserve.  Capitalists way back in 1913 decided this, and now you have to live with it.  I prefer to deal with reality, or reality deals with you.

Hmm, let's see signed into law by Woodrow Wilson a leader of the progressive movement (socialist lite).  Oh, let's see JP Morgan (also a progressive) major involvement.  Gee, all these capitalists, oops - wait progressives.  Calling the FED a capitalist institution is just plain delusional.  Manipulation of the money supply completely destroys the root of capitalism, without a sound currency, everything else is faulty as we are now seeing.

Damnthematrix wrote:

I prefer to deal with reality

Wow, you had me fooled!

But you, VF, Darbikrash have all shown your arrogance to your fellow human beings.  I guess you feel you will all be among the chosen elite in the socialist movement since you all seem to enjoy telling others how they must live, as opposed to trying to educate people and allow them to make their own choices.

A nice article was on biggovernment.com today nicely covering the arrogance of those in the progressive movement:

The Audacity of Progressivism

Damnthematrix wrote:

Not this again.........  Greg, I frankly don't care what you think.  I wasn't going to reply to this inflamatory post and even considered flagging it, but AFAIC, people who don't "do what [I] think is good" will simply not survive.

I don't need a gun, that's why I don't have one.  please go away.

Arrogant, dismissive, and abusive, doing quite well all in one post...No confusion on your view of those you deem to be below you.

Damnthematrix wrote:

I don't need a gun, that's why I don't have one. 

FYI - gregroberts was referring to your advocating the force of goverment (the gun - which they have and use if you don't comply).  Hmm, another good place for a link to my favorite article on this subject:

Button Button

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Naomi Kline ~ The Shock Doctrine

Rhare,

I'm not attacking you, personally. I find what you write here offers me a great deal to think about that is beneficial to myself and others. I just disagree with some of what you identify with as being unsustainable. I've sent you links and info, both public and private, and I never gain the sense that you give a moments thought before assuming you're under some kind of siege and pile in with an attack measured in the amount of quote boxes you use in reply?

I gave you a complete online PDF copy of Naomi Kline ~ The Shock Doctrine a while ago, and I'm giving it to you here yet again. The first chapter alone elicits exactly what I and many others over the years in this forum have been trying to explain to you again and again. But if you don't read that chapter (or better still, the entire book), and debate about it with me logically from point to point, we're just going to go around in a circular tangent until the end of time. As I've said before, I don't have anyone in my "Block User" facility, simply because the richness of this site would become void by the use of it.

Incidentally, I'm getting pretty sick of being labelled a socialist in this forum, since under the cover of societal nicety in your part of the world, I gather it is something likened to calling a man a paedophile in the United States. Since I'm neither a socialist or a paedophile ... ibid your honour ...

Respectfully,

~ VF ~

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
the gun in the room

Statists sure hate it when you point out that every one of their ideas requires the use of force. (the gun in the room)

Pretty much sums them up, see below...

Anti-Socialism posters

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
So let’s see now, the

So let’s see now, the hijinks get into high gear again..

rhare wrote:

Hmm, let's see signed into law by Woodrow Wilson a leader of the progressive movement (socialist lite).  Oh, let's see JP Morgan (also a progressive) major involvement.  Gee, all these capitalists, oops - wait progressives.  Calling the FED a capitalist institution is just plain delusional.  Manipulation of the money supply completely destroys the root of capitalism, without a sound currency, everything else is faulty as we are now seeing.

JP Morgan as a Progressive! Yes I can see how one could confuse a CAPITALIST like JP Morgan with a Progressive of the day. LOL. Like holding a beach ball underwater, it just takes so much effort to advance this nonsense that we have to resort to revising history. I’m sure there are some revisionist websites somewhere that will proclaim JP Morgan was a liberal or a progressive, and I’m sure it’s great fun to conflate the word PROGRESSIVE with CAPTIALIST  (some from less polite circles might use the term ROBBER BARON) but that’s not how history records it:

wiki JP Morgan wrote:

1907 Panic

The Panic of 1907 was a financial crisis that almost crippled the American economy. Major New York banks were on the verge of bankruptcy and there was no mechanism to rescue them until Morgan stepped in personally and took charge, resolving the crisis.[12][13] Treasury Secretary George B. Cortelyou earmarked $35 million of federal money to quell the storm but had no easy way to use it. Morgan now took personal charge, meeting with the nation's leading financiers in his New York mansion; he forced them to devise a plan to meet the crisis. James Stillman, president of the National City Bank, also played a central role. Morgan organized a team of bank and trust executives which redirected money between banks, secured further international lines of credit, and bought plummeting stocks of healthy corporations. A delicate political issue arose regarding the brokerage firm of Moore and Schley, which was deeply involved in a speculative pool in the stock of the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company. Moore and Schley had pledged over $6 million of the Tennessee Coal and Iron (TCI) stock for loans among the Wall Street banks. The banks had called the loans, and the firm could not pay. If Moore and Schley should fail, a hundred more failures would follow and then all Wall Street might go to pieces. Morgan decided they had to save Moore and Schley. TCI was one of the chief competitors of U.S. Steel and it owned valuable iron and coal deposits. Morgan controlled U.S. Steel and he decided it had to buy the TCI stock from Moore and Schley. Judge Gary, head of US Steel, agreed, but would there be antitrust implications that could cause grave trouble for US Steel, which was already dominant in the steel industry. Morgan sent Gary to see President Theodore Roosevelt, who promised legal immunity for the deal. U.S. Steel thereupon paid $30 million for the TCI stock and Moore and Schley was saved. The announcement had an immediate effect; by November 7, 1907, the panic was over. Vowing to never let it happen again, and realizing that in a future crisis there was not likely to be another Morgan, banking and political leaders, led by Senator Nelson Aldrich devised a plan that became the Federal Reserve System in 1913.[14] The crisis underscored the need for a powerful mechanism, and Morgan supported the move to create the Federal Reserve System.

Critics

While conservatives in the Progressive Era hailed Morgan for his civic responsibility, his strengthening of the national economy, and his devotion to the arts and religion, the left wing felt threatened by his enormous economic power.[15]

Enemies of banking attacked Morgan for the terms of his loan of gold to the federal government in the 1895 crisis, for his financial resolution of the Panic of 1907, and for bringing on the financial ills of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. In December 1912, Morgan testified before the Pujo Committee, a subcommittee of the House Banking and Currency committee. The committee ultimately found that a cabal of financial leaders were abusing their public trust to consolidate control over many industries: the partners of J.P. Morgan & Co. along with the directors of First National and National City Bank controlled aggregate resources of $22.245 billion. Louis Brandeis, later a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, compared this sum to the value of all the property in the twenty-two states west of the Mississippi River.[16]

Yes, indeed just another well meaning progressive mucking up the free market.

MANIPULATION OF THE MONEY SUPPLY IS EXACTLY THE ROOT OF CAPITALISM. Without free and easy money, there can be NO CAPITALISM as it cannot grow, it is a LIMIT which is precisely the issue!! Duh!

rhare wrote:

But you, VF, Darbikrash have all shown your arrogance to your fellow human beings.  I guess you feel you will all be among the chosen elite in the socialist movement since you all seem to enjoy telling others how they must live, as opposed to trying to educate people and allow them to make their own choices.

And here we have it folks, just dare to disagree with the conservative, just dare to point out that there may well be flaws in the beloved system, just dare, and immediately without further adieu, you are placed into the realm of the pejorative, you are guilty of disagreeing and so, by inference, you are:

1.)   Guilty of dictating exactly how others shall live.

2.)   Single handedly removing civil rights and quashing liberty

3.)   Removing the ability for others to make choices.

4.)   Exhibiting arrogance.

5.)   Condoning the use of force

6.)   Advocating for, and in support of big government.

Fortunately we have elders such as Rhare to educate the unwashed lumpen proletariat, to advise us in the error of our ways, frantically peddling their 10 speed bikes door to door, prostheltizing all that is good and learned in the free market system,  with a dog eared copy of Atlas Shrugged tucked under arm.

If you put enough people on the CM ignore list does the truth go away…or does it just get more like Fox News.

 

 

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
If you put enough people on

If you put enough people on the CM ignore list does the truth go away…or does it just get more like Fox News.

 I never put anyone on the ignore list, most people here have something important to say.

I always hope that we could all find common ground with freedom, where the use of force is rejected and solutions are found using voluntary methods. When we start arguing about capitalism this and socialism that we're really not getting anywhere. I would also like to say I,m not in favor of the current political or economic system, if this is capitalism (which it isn't) then hell with it.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
gregroberts wrote: If you
gregroberts wrote:

If you put enough people on the CM ignore list does the truth go away…or does it just get more like Fox News.

 I never put anyone on the ignore list, most people here have something important to say.

I always hope that we could all find common ground with freedom, where the use of force is rejected and solutions are found using voluntary methods. When we start arguing about capitalism this and socialism that we're really not getting anywhere. I would also like to say I,m not in favor of the current political or economic system, if this is capitalism (which it isn't) then hell with it.

Americans are so good at rejecting the use of force when things don't go their way.........

And there's no such as freedom.  You are just kidding yourself.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Damnthematrix wrote: And
Damnthematrix wrote:

And there's no such as freedom.  You are just kidding yourself.

And for those who have never lifted a finger to secure it, defend it, and preserve it, they  wouldn't recognize it if it swam up their toilet and bit them in the ass.

But boy oh boy, can they sure yammer on about it as if they had.

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1325
Opps - mind/fingers not working together.
darbikrash wrote:

JP Morgan as a Progressive! Yes I can see how one could confuse a CAPITALIST like JP Morgan with a Progressive of the day. LOL

Opps, I meant to say Aldrich, the senator that was the instigator in the forming of the Fed.  I was trying to think of the Jekyl Island group and mind/fingers did different things. 

darbikrash wrote:

MANIPULATION OF THE MONEY SUPPLY IS EXACTLY THE ROOT OF CAPITALISM. Without free and easy money, there can be NO CAPITALISM as it cannot grow, it is a LIMIT which is precisely the issue!!

I disagree with this statement. I believe once you manipulate the money supply you no longer have the free voluntary exchange of goods since you are influencing purchasing decisions and promoting un-natural behaviour (low interest rates, etc).  I also see no requirement of growth in capitalism.

The rest of your rant I'm choosing to ignore, as I don't put people on the ignore list to make the truth go away.  I put them on the ignore list so that I don't waste time.  Your right to speak does not mean a right to be heard. I never advocate what you have to believe or how you should live your life.   You can do what you want, my beef with most progressives is they insist on telling me how I have to live.

darbikrash wrote:

Fortunately we have elders such as Rhare to educate the unwashed lumpen proletariat, to advise us in the error of our ways, frantically peddling their 10 speed bikes door to door, prostheltizing all that is good and learned in the free market system,  with a dog eared copy of Atlas Shrugged tucked under arm.

I guess your not arrogant....Wink

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Take A Moment If You Will ...
Dogs_In_A_Pile wrote:
Damnthematrix wrote:

And there's no such thing as freedom.  You are just kidding yourself.

And for those who have never lifted a finger to secure it, defend it, and preserve it, they  wouldn't recognize it if it swam up their toilet and bit them in the ass.

But boy oh boy, can they sure yammer on about it as if they had.

Rick,

With all intent and purpose, and for all of the lives you feel you saved to gain something toward a retribution to your final breath, I see the very high chance that upward of a billion people could well die around the globe from starvation alone in the next five years or so. A population of the planet oh so worthy of defending has but grown to die off in greater number by the intercept and intervention of warfare. Would less suffering have been met if the actions of that which you and what you stand in defending had never ceased to exist?

One can but ponder ...

~ VF ~

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
give me liberty
Damnthematrix wrote:
gregroberts wrote:

If you put enough people on the CM ignore list does the truth go away…or does it just get more like Fox News.

 I never put anyone on the ignore list, most people here have something important to say.

I always hope that we could all find common ground with freedom, where the use of force is rejected and solutions are found using voluntary methods. When we start arguing about capitalism this and socialism that we're really not getting anywhere. I would also like to say I,m not in favor of the current political or economic system, if this is capitalism (which it isn't) then hell with it.

Americans are so good at rejecting the use of force when things don't go their way.........

And there's no such as freedom.  You are just kidding yourself.

Frankly, I'm more interested in liberty than freedom.  That's why why Patrick Henry said, "give me liberty or give me death".  That's why we revere the Liberty Bell.  While there may not be such a thing as freedom in Australia, there is an ideal of liberty that is aspired to in America more than any other place on earth.  And as Dogs pointed out, those that have worked for it (and paid the price for it) or conversely, those that have had it taken away after having had it, appreciate it the most.

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Indemnity ...

ao,

Yes, aspired to, but pointedly, as a majority I fear will no-longer reach ...

~ VF ~

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Vanityfox451 wrote: ao, Yes,
Vanityfox451 wrote:

ao,

Yes, aspired to, but pointedly, as a majority I fear will no-longer reach ...

~ VF ~

Sadly, I agree, but one has to have aspirations towards which one can direct one's actions.

On the issue of liberty, I had an interesting experience at a local branch of a large well recognized bank yesterday.  I had opened a SEP-IRA a number of years back and just dumped some cash in.  Since I didn't want to have all my money invested at the time, I've left it in cash, as poor as that ROI has been.  I recently decided that I wanted to convert that cash account into a brokerage account.  After going through question after question after question related to Patriot Act requirements, I finally thought we were done.  Then we got to the good stuff.  The account rep (actually a licensed stockbroker) asks me if my income is below or above 100K.  We get into a long dialogue about how that is none of their business but he insists we cannot go on if those questions are not answered.  I keep repeating that this information is unnecessary for the transaction to continue since I am neither requesting nor require any professional advice related to investing.  I also emphasize that I have had numerous other brokerage accounts and questions like these are often asked but the answering of the question has been optional, never mandatory.  I further explain that there are no laws that I'm aware of that require this information but if there are, I'd like him to fax or e-mail me a copy.  He replies that he does not know the law.  I reply then, how can you insist on knowing this information?  Eventually, he admits that it is company policy (which was quite obvious all along).  I then request a copy of the page from their policies and procedures manual which contains this information.  Our conversation has already been going on a good 20 minutes and he seems to be thrown off balance by this particular request.  He has to consult with a superior but comes back renewed in his intransigence.

Finally, I capitulate and tell him over 100K.  He's made a big point of how this question covers broad categories and retain privacy by not asking specifics.  His next question is under 200K or over 200K?  I laugh out loud (and it's not a happy laugh but a WTF laugh) and ask pointedly, what is this, a joke?  After much further back-and-forth, it turns out, they insist on knowing income level by progressively narrowing down categories.  They also want to know how your liquid assets are allocated and what your net worth is.  Again, I want to emphasize that this information is not optional for them, it's mandatory.  I politely tell him to take a long walk on a short pier by telling him I am no longer interested in opening this account and I will be closing our other accounts as well. 

I then make a purchase today at a sporting goods store and have my zipcode requested.  I politely tell them to go fish.

I then make another purchase today at a large hardware chain and have my phone number requested.  Again, I politely tell them to go fish.

Every time I question one of these actions, I'm told I'm the only person who does so (which seems to be their stock response to such questioning).

The assault on liberty and privacy continues.  

 

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
A temporary lapse of reason
rhare wrote:

I disagree with this statement. I believe once you manipulate the money supply you no longer have the free voluntary exchange of goods since you are influencing purchasing decisions and promoting un-natural behaviour (low interest rates, etc).  I also see no requirement of growth in capitalism.

The rest of your rant I'm choosing to ignore, as I don't put people on the ignore list to make the truth go away.  I put them on the ignore list so that I don't waste time. 

Well some would say that you put people on the ignore list as they put forth ideas, concepts, facts, and notions that you do not agree with, and are unable to defend.

It might seem easier to “not waste your time” responding to things that are indefensible

I’ve read enough of your posts, had enough direct exchanges with you, and have enough respect for your integrity to know that this is not true, appearance aside.

I disagree with this statement. I believe once you manipulate the money supply you no longer have the free voluntary exchange of goods since you are influencing purchasing decisions and promoting un-natural behavior (low interest rates, etc).  I also see no requirement of growth in capitalism.

This is actually a rational response, both in tone and in content. And I agree with the theory and implication of what you’ve said. And as a business owner and closet capitalist myself I dearly want to believe these statements. But as a result of first starting and running actively, a good sized business for well over 20 years, I know from both personal observation, and then as a result of the cognitive dissonance implicit in these observations, the theory why these statements are not true. I wish I could tell you I perceived this theory early in life, and structured my belief system around profound knowledge not generally available, but this is not so. I acted first, as any other businessman acts, and learned later why things were happening.

The statement that you see no intrinsic growth in capitalism is the very core of the misunderstanding.

It has to grow, and grow exponentially. The manipulation of money is ordained by other capitalists to support capitalism. The financial charlatans both in JP Morgan’s’ time and our current time are then and are now simply capitalists, doing what capitalists do and what they will always do- manipulate markets, consolidate and concentrate capital to their own advantage, and most importantly, sponsor and advocate that most hideous of all the alchemies, the conversion of money to social power in the form of government capture.

Some very smart people figured out a very long time ago that which is most profound, that capital is not a thing, but a process. It takes different forms at different places in a  linear process. It can be money, it can be labor power, it can be a commodity, it can be a machine tool, but it can never, never, stop moving. It must always be in  motion.

Further, the notion that capital and the resulting theology of capitalism is relegated to the annals of labor and that of manufactured goods was shattered by a simple rearrangement of a relational equation, C - M - C indicating that money is converted to a commodity (with the introduction of labor power) and then sold for money which is then used to buy more commodities, in the traditional description of a free market.  Rearranging to M - C - M we can see that the endeavor of capitalism can now be applied, in totality, to the industry of creating money for money’s sake, in effect, launching the entire financial services industry and putting into play a critical dialectical understanding of how money is used by capitalists (such as JP Morgan) in the very same way a large manufacturer in  a free market economy would.

In this fashion, and in this respect, the financiers at Jeckle Island were no different than any other breed of Industrialists, in pursuit of their particular strain of capitalism they were simply removing the limits imparted by the money of the day, by creating the Federal Reserve Banking system , and using the alchemy of monetizing social power in the form of legislative capture in implementing said plan onto the American hardscape.

An entirely Capitalist plot hatched by , and paid for by the Capitalist for the Capitalists.

So yes, manipulation of money is part and parcel of the whole capitalist structure. And no, this is most certainly not what Adam Smith had in mind when he wrote “Wealth of Nations- but it is the axiomatic and entirely predictable, and unavoidable extension of same.

As countenance to the notion of greed driving the accumulation of capital, this is not correct in totality, as there is an intrinsic growth imperative within capitalism, the most easily understood version of this is related to the Coercive laws of Competition. Understanding these axiomatic predilections is helpful to understand why all unregulated free markets must grow, and grow exponentially.

There is plenty of good reading if one is so inclined to examine exactly why capitalism must grow, and grow exponentially. There are many supporting books that examine other factors of why this is true. The book Vanity Fox recommended above, Naomi Clines’ “Shock Doctrine” is an excellent supporting text and will illuminate in a non-technical way many of the tangential issues surrounding this conundrum

I hope you take the time to read it.

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
In Respect of Liberty ...
ao wrote:

... one has to have aspirations towards which one can direct one's actions.

ao,

Your actions are admirable, and I admit that I am equally as challenging to what is sold to me as a bureaucratic truth that is mandatory, when in fact it is but a bit of tat fluff they've used to make you assume that you have to give up your private details. So true also that the self same standard answer here - just as in the States - that I'm the only person they've met who disagree, causing them the pain of hunting someone above them who has to readily admit that I'm right, even though grudgingly.

I think it was Aldous Huxley who was once heard to say prophetically that "Liberties are not given, they are taken". As I see more and more that the people I pose question with here in the UK are more dominantly sleep-walkers marching into the depths of the twenty-first centuries horrors with barely a murmur of dissension, I sense there is a time arriving soon where all the history I use to question where I see my place in the world will become, first annexed off, then destroyed, where I foresee either no place, or an acceptance that I no-longer have right to question.

Silence is too much of a cross to bare. Since I still have room for choice, at this moment in time I choose no place. As Dr. Martin Luther King once said, "A man who will not die for something is not fit to live".

~ VF ~

 

bluhorizon's picture
bluhorizon
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 30 2011
Posts: 4
Well, you said it already

Well, you said it already this world is far from perfect so let's just try not to contribute to it's flaws and try to work on making our life and our environment better. Start in your home, in your community. Do what you can and try not to worry too much that our world is far from perfect.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments