Is Anti-Globalist the Same as Anti-Capitalist? And News at the end.

I had a couple of people tell me the same thing today. They said that they had heard that the wealthy were selling of their stocks and bonds. I asked if they knew what they were buying instead. I know the answer, they are buying large amounts of property, luxury yachts, overpriced art and other hard assets that are not gold. They are putting their money into things that will not be destroyed when the currencies crash. You might wonder why the yachts. That should be obvious, in a global world, they can just go to another country when one is hit by riots or other civil disturbances. That is what the Russians in Cyprus did.

Now lets talk about the difference between globalism and capitalism, they are not the same thing. Recently, I saw an article that called people protesting the G8 (a meeting of the top 8 economies) "anti-capitalist". It was quite misleading. Russia was communist for years and that did not stop the United States from being a capitalist economy. Heck, every country in the world could be capitalistic and it would not mean that we would have to be in a globalist system. The opposite is also true, the whole world could have communistic or socialistic or any other kind of istic economy and it still would not require a globalist format.

Globalism is about an end to national sovereignty. It is that simple. Now, you might think this is a good or bad thing; but, it has nothing to do with capitalism. The European Union is an attempt at creating a framework for globalism. As the Eurozone continues to fail the "leaders" are calling for the EU to be turned into a federation, something resembling states in the United States. In fact, they are already their with 80% or so of their laws being written by the EU in Brussels rather than by the participating nations.

Now lets look at what capitalism is. It is private ownership of the wealth of a nation and the ability to trade amongst one another. Dealing pot is capitalistic, selling sex is capitalistic, selling your children is capitalistic, even murder for hire is capitalistic and any hitman will tell you. The question becomes, should there be limits on how we conduct business and what we sell? Should the courts have to enforce contracts that are to do illegal acts? If so, then what laws can we have to protect anyone?

There is a new movie out called "The Purge", it is about a future where for one night a year, nothing is illegal and everyone is on their own. That would be the definition of pure capitalism. The media likes to determine how we will view events rather than just give us the facts anymore. The mainstream media has become the pimps for whoever pays them and it is a shame. Look how quickly the term "job creators" was universally adopted by the media. They are appealing to our belief that the system works as intended and it does not. The system is rigged to benefit those who are already rich.

My concept of capitalism is a system where everyone has a chance to succeed based on their efforts. Slavery can exist within a capitalistic system. You can be sold into slavery or even sell yourself into slavery in a true completely capitalistic society. What concerns me today is that the mainstream media seems to support this type of capitalism. In Pakistan people sell their children to Arabs to be camel jockeys (this is not joke and is very cruel), they sell their kids so they can eat and that their kids can eat.

The alternative to a world where anything goes and communism is as varied as you can imagine. Communism supposedly rewards everyone the same and that has a tendency to be unfair, yet, it is no more unfair than being sold into slavery. We can have a world with rules where we benefit those based on their efforts and willingness to risk their own money. Instead we have an economy where CEOs make their money by risking the investors money rather than there own. Heck, if they make a mistake they can get paid even better. Rewarding people for gaming or misusing the system is not capitalism, it is lawlessness.

Bloomberg - Traders Said to Rig Currency Rates to Profit Off Clients. If I pay someone to help me and instead they steal from me, is that capitalism or insanity? You may wish to think that the problem is one of morals and on a level it is; but, these people are taught that manipulating the system is their job and they are rewarded for doing so. Just consider the bonuses we paid to bankers AFTER their banks failed and we had to bail them out. Is that the type of capitalism you think we should support, one without rules. Greenspan reportedly believed in that type of capitalism and that is why it is claimed he did not want the derivatives market regulated. Well, that may or may not be his reason, I believe he is okay with an Globalism.

Yahoo - Reuters - Regulator gives big banks two years to push out swaps trading. As part of financial reform laws, big banks that received bailouts are supposed to stop making certain types of high risk investments and trades; but, we are going to give them two more years. What do you think they will do with the assets that they have to move out of the system in the next two years, do you think they will try and game the system again. They will and have already begun.

CNBC - Cramer: Stock Market 'Do Not Enter' Sign?. Somethings can only hidden for so long and even Cramer has to tell the truth sometimes or he would lose all credibility.

Yahoo - Business Insider - Central Banks May Finally Be Losing Control

Bloomberg - Eminent Domain Debate for Mortgages Revived by Fed Paper. So, why would cities and counties that claim to be in such dire straights want to buy up homes? Seems odd that one of the biggest proponents was San Bernadino when they also declared bankruptcy and then it turned out that they lied and could fund their pensions as I previously discussed and as was verified by Calpers? Well, by taking over the homes at a cut rate, they can then rent them out and create a revenue stream for the long term. The homeowners won't complain because it will artificially inflate the property value.

The International Monetary Fund plan called the "Chicago Plan Revisited" basically calls for eliminating all household debt, a reset if you will. In exchange, instead of buying your house, you merely pay the interest on the original loan for life. Isn't it interesting that many people had interest only loans for the first five years, we already know they can make that payment. You are freed from your "debt" because you will never own anything again. It is not capitalism and yet it is.

Here is how it could go down. Your local municipality will buy houses in foreclosure, you will be allowed to live their as long as you live and make the interest only payment. You will be required to maintain "your" property and will have to agree to keep up payments unless you lose your job or die or whatever else they consider to be a valid reason for leaving.

Now, timing for all of this I still do not know. We are seeing the market volatility that I had predicted and certainly the warning signs are all there. I cannot tell you exactly how it will all unravel or if it will take a month or two years. If I see someone building roads and utilities out to an area where there are no people, I know people are coming; but, when is much more tricky. I wish that I could say that it won't be for two years and maybe it will not. I wish I could tell you for sure that it will begin this month; but, remember even if it does, there are a whole lot of other pieces that will have to follow and that could take two years or more. Everything will not happen at once, markets will all see downturns in a fairly short period; but the actual implementation of the solution may take a bit and will.

Now lets try the Pimpernel tax model. What if we guaranteed everyone to live at the poverty level. Everyone would be guarenteed at least $20,000 if they at least worked or did community service, we would just provide it to the disabled, elderly or undesirable if they could not provide for themselves. We could make it more or less based on whatever was determined to be needed, we could base it on the number of people in the family and skew for the number that are capable of working. What about a system that ensured that everyone who was willing to work could have food and a place to live even if we didn't have a job for them? And when a job became available that they were capable of doing that did not involve something that might be found morally offensive to some, if they did not take the job, they would lose their benefits. I mention this because in some countries where prostitution is legal, welfare recipients were expected to take those jobs even if they found it against their beliefs. I wrote about that a long time ago; but, am not going to go back and find it.

What if everyone else was taxed 15% of all income that they made each year, not on their holdings, on their income regardless of where it came from. You know what, we could pay off the national debt in under ten years and keep private ownership of houses and everything else. Here is a video that you should watch, it is not long.

YouTube - A TED Talk on Income Inequality by Nick Hanauer