Clearly I am feeling better than I have in the last couple of weeks, in fact I am almost feeling normal. I have been saving up articles for when I could explain myself better; but, have found that I saved too many so I will do an information dump.
Rolling Stone - The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet
. The author, Matt Taibbi, has just left Rolling Stone and he will be missed. He is one of the few true investigative journalists out there and I wish him well. In this article Mr. Taibbi shows how in the 1990s the big banks were allowed to purchase the industrial system and the self-regulationary groups it had created. Here is where I believe he missed the boat, while attacking the banks being allowed to buy the industrial cycle, he forgot that we had already outlawed companies from doing the exact same thing when we passed laws against monopolies.
Let me explain. During the early 1900s as the industrial revolution really took hold, companies such as the Rockefeller's Standard Oil was able to buy 95% of all the oil production in the United States and then used this power to force everyone to do what they wanted, they were able to coerce all the other companies to pay more than they should have and destroy companies that did not go along with them. This was true in steel production, the railroads and later in the utilities industry. The effect of the monopolies was to destroy competition which is the heart of capitalism. Eventually it got so bad that monopolies were outlawed. Now we have monopolies; but, they are created by the banks being allowed to do what industry was not allowed to do.
Rolling Stone - Matt Taibbi - Ex-Morgan Stanley Chief Jams Foot in Mouth, Complains of CEO Abuse. An example of another person complaining that by talking about corruption in the financial industry, we are picking on the poor CEOs that benefited from completely corrupting the financial system.
Business Insider - The 'Internet Of Things' Will Be Bigger Than The Smartphone, Tablet, And PC Markets Combined. Let me summarize this quickly, business is thrilled at the opportunity to observe everything you do so that they can market things to you and increase the costs to you based upon your individual usage, this is basically the use of the internet to destroy the capitalistic view of purchasing things in bulk as a community. The war that is being waged is against the individual. Here is how it will work. If you buy toilet paper every week, you will get a discount for buying a particular brand more than others. Sounds good, right? If you buy toiler paper once a month, you will get less of a discount. It is about targeted pricing and not targeted discounts. Why do you think all the large markets now give you Rewards discounts and offer you individualized coupons? It is also a violation of the Constitutional concept of treating all people the same. The consequence is even worse for the average American and destroys the idea of working as a group. What if, those who spend a $100,000 a year on groceries were given a 10% discount on everything they bought and everyone who spent less got no discount, who would be subsidizing whom? By the way, that is exactly the reason why Rewards cards were created.
Yahoo - AP - Minimum wage report puts Democrats on defensive. A report by the Congressional Budget Office claims that if we increase the minimum wage, roughly 25%, we will lose about half a million jobs. I guess those jobs will be outsourced to communist China because anything that makes a profit and has to be located here will continue to be located here. If you thought the report was accurate, lets make a deal. I want congress to promise me that if we don't increase the minimum wage, we will not outsource anymore jobs to communist China or allow more immigration. If we lose another 500,000 jobs then we should automatically double the minimum wage. That would be fair. The report is insincere in that it does not have the guts to follow it's own logic. If we eliminated any minimum wage and allowed people to work as slave labor, how many more jobs would we be able to create? What if we just went back to slavery, would we have more manufacturing jobs? Sure we would.
New York Times - The Bank Rescue, Five Years Later
. This is an amusing article, the author liked the bank bailouts and defends the stimulus program, both of which primarily benefited private industry; but, dislikes the Affordable Care Act. The author would prefer giving away your tax dollars to bail out the banks that destroyed the economy and the stimulus program that primarily benefited large construction companies by paying them to do "shovel ready" jobs that didn't need to be done in the first place more than requiring people who use medical services and pay nothing to have to have insurance.
New York Times - Outrage Over Wall St. Pay, but Shrugs for Silicon Valley?
. Yes, we should be mad about people taking money away from investors and our pensions for their making risky investments and going bankrupt at the expense of others and not be mad at people who created real products that we can use to save us time and money. We should not be mad at silicon valley computer and software designers for giving us useful products and being paid for it; but, we should be mad at Wall Street and the financial sector for stealing our money and giving us nothing in return. Here is a crazy capitalistic concept, what if we paid people based on how much they contributed to society and not on how much they steal from the rest of us and the damage they do?
intellihub - 8th international banker to die in a month jumps off building in China. One of the suicides involved a banker who shot himself in the head 8 or 9 times with a nail gun and it wasn't deemed suspicious. Another involved a man who had just e-mailed his girlfriend that he was headed home and then jumped off the 33rd floor of a JP Morgan building in London.
Yahoo - AP - NYSE stocks posting largest volume decreases. A 95% decrease in the amount of shares of stock being traded on the NYSE while prices increases means that the big investors are not trading, yet; but, it also means that the market prices are being manipulated. I think the end is near and we should question whom the bell tolls for.
Yahoo - Obama: Ukraine, Syria are not pieces on ‘some Cold-War chessboard’. Of course they are pieces in a game and the game is simple. Either the Ukraine will fall in line with Russia or come into the European Union. The people want to join the European Union and the elected officials want to put them back under the control of Russia. It really is that simple.
I don't like communism where you are not rewarded for your individual efforts and own nothing. I don't like fascism where corporations control everything and you are prevented from owning anything because someone else already owns it all. I don't like any system that denies you a chance to succeed because the game is already rigged, that just means a system where you are born into it a slave. I like the society we used to all believe in, the one where if you kept your nose clean, worked hard and helped the nation as a whole, you were rewarded individually, that is the true American dream. Oh, and if you were a good citizen you could retire with dignity and security because you had earned it.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Todays "Libertarians" are the true Fascists.
In both the United States and Britain there is a growing "popular" movement towards "libertarians" who are often also called independents. While these people run on popular singular issues or limited issues, their real belief system is quite undemocratic and would actually allow more of what has gone on in our financial and political systems.
The Daily Beast - The End of Republicans and Democrats (And Your Libertarian Future)
While the best example of this in England is UKIP (United Kingdom Independent Party), the American example would be Ron Paul. To disenfranchised Republicans this may sound like heresy; but, let me explain. Lets start with him in his own words.
YouTube - 3.2.12 Ron Paul on the Occupy Movement.
Mr. Paul is against American involvement in wars outside of the United States. He is also against bailing out banks and the Federal Reserve. Many of the left and right can agree on those things as do I mostly. Some of the other things he is against is government regulation and government "entitlements". Rather than limited government regulation as is called for by traditional Republicans, he is against just about all federal regulations. Well, the truth is that those regulations did not come overnight. The history of federal regulations started because people in one state did not care about what they sold to people in another state and this included allowing dead rats in our food supply. Read up on the history of the FDA and you can get an idea of just how bad things were in the beginning of the industrial age.
As a political philosophy, "libertarians" in America don't believe in being taxed or regulated and are more like Social Darwinists. In fact, there is almost no difference between libertarians and anarchists except that one is seen as left and the other seen as right. Neither believes in government. They hold the most simplistic of political philosophy, our ability to regulate and work together as a community with common interests, they do believe in the common good. No successful society has or will ever be built on these beliefs.
The extremist views found within the left and the right are both flawed in logic and history; however, our "middle" (traditional conservative and liberal) philosophies appear to have failed as we have allowed our government to be bought out by special interests. The famous Satanist Alister Crowley in his most famous book said that for the Satanist the whole of the law was to do as one wanted and both libertarians and anarchists pretty much agree. Both groups would legalize all drugs and despise the poor.
Our political understanding in America about the consequences has devolved to nothing and an overwhelmed nation seeks simple answers to correct what is clearly not working. Mr. Paul has stated that the problem with government is that it can make laws and because of that they get bought out to make bad laws. Following his statements and logic the solution is to have NO laws. So why do I call it Fascism, because it is actually worse than Fascism. A Fascist is merely a socialist that believes in government control to the benefit of the state and it's partners and sees the benefits for the state and business as more important than the benefits derived for the individual and society. The elimination of all commercial enterprise is Communism, the elimination of all government has no single name because no society has been suicidal enough to try it.
Here is the difference between Mr. Paul and traditional conservatives. A traditional conservative believes in capitalism; but, believes that there should be truth in lending if you will. A traditional conservative would be against people selling food as "organic" or cars as "new" that were not, they would be against lying in an agreement. In order to make sure that there were standards and rules to make sure that people had a true negotiated deal, they voted along with liberal to create organizations to make sure that weights and measures were standardized, regulated and followed. Mr. Paul would just eliminate governments from making sure these rules were met. While traditional conservatives want to go back to the 1950s, libertarians want to go back to the 1800s.
In the 1800s and early 1900s most people never went more than 20 miles from where they lived, lived in farming communities, knew everyone of their neighbors and knew who they traded with personally. If you cheated your neighbor and others knew about it you would be ignored and nobody would trade with you. I hate to wake them up; but, that doesn't happen much anymore and the multinational company that sells you food does not care about nor worry about your personal trade with them because they can just shift where they sell without any consequences. These companies are not just too big to fail, they are too big to care.
I don't think most people would agree with Mr. Paul if they understood his past voting record and the totality of his beliefs. I disagree with Mr. Paul because I believe in America as more than just a territorial area. I believe that we should have a government of people who choose to live in the country (and have the option of leaving if they so desire) and that the country should be by the people and for the people, the people being the key phrase.
I would love the opportunity to interview Mr. Paul and believe he would be honest enough and happy to answer my questions, I don't doubt the man's integrity or sincerity. Having said that, he has confused capitalism with democracy. While he may like Ayn Rand, I prefer Aristotle. Aristotle determined that the only right and best way to regulate society was by having the majority choose the rules, he took it for sake that all societies other than the most primitive always ended up with some having more control than others. He thought that power should be in the hands of the majority rather than a oligarch (small number of controllers) or a monarchy (single rulers by area).
While getting my Bachelor's degree in Political Science with multiple national and university awards and recognitions, I had a very special professor, he taught Political Philosophy. One day he was discussing Plato and Aristotle and I asked if he would define Plato as conservative and Aristotle as liberal, he said the terms did not apply and I have thought about his words for decades and long ago concluded he was correct. Today liberal means allowing people to do what they want and conservative means letting business do what it wants.
A community is a group of people that decides together and lives under the same rules and consequences. I believe in community because I believe the best government is the one that involves as many people who will have to live under the same rules making the rules.
The Daily Beast - The End of Republicans and Democrats (And Your Libertarian Future)
While the best example of this in England is UKIP (United Kingdom Independent Party), the American example would be Ron Paul. To disenfranchised Republicans this may sound like heresy; but, let me explain. Lets start with him in his own words.
YouTube - 3.2.12 Ron Paul on the Occupy Movement.
Mr. Paul is against American involvement in wars outside of the United States. He is also against bailing out banks and the Federal Reserve. Many of the left and right can agree on those things as do I mostly. Some of the other things he is against is government regulation and government "entitlements". Rather than limited government regulation as is called for by traditional Republicans, he is against just about all federal regulations. Well, the truth is that those regulations did not come overnight. The history of federal regulations started because people in one state did not care about what they sold to people in another state and this included allowing dead rats in our food supply. Read up on the history of the FDA and you can get an idea of just how bad things were in the beginning of the industrial age.
As a political philosophy, "libertarians" in America don't believe in being taxed or regulated and are more like Social Darwinists. In fact, there is almost no difference between libertarians and anarchists except that one is seen as left and the other seen as right. Neither believes in government. They hold the most simplistic of political philosophy, our ability to regulate and work together as a community with common interests, they do believe in the common good. No successful society has or will ever be built on these beliefs.
The extremist views found within the left and the right are both flawed in logic and history; however, our "middle" (traditional conservative and liberal) philosophies appear to have failed as we have allowed our government to be bought out by special interests. The famous Satanist Alister Crowley in his most famous book said that for the Satanist the whole of the law was to do as one wanted and both libertarians and anarchists pretty much agree. Both groups would legalize all drugs and despise the poor.
Our political understanding in America about the consequences has devolved to nothing and an overwhelmed nation seeks simple answers to correct what is clearly not working. Mr. Paul has stated that the problem with government is that it can make laws and because of that they get bought out to make bad laws. Following his statements and logic the solution is to have NO laws. So why do I call it Fascism, because it is actually worse than Fascism. A Fascist is merely a socialist that believes in government control to the benefit of the state and it's partners and sees the benefits for the state and business as more important than the benefits derived for the individual and society. The elimination of all commercial enterprise is Communism, the elimination of all government has no single name because no society has been suicidal enough to try it.
Here is the difference between Mr. Paul and traditional conservatives. A traditional conservative believes in capitalism; but, believes that there should be truth in lending if you will. A traditional conservative would be against people selling food as "organic" or cars as "new" that were not, they would be against lying in an agreement. In order to make sure that there were standards and rules to make sure that people had a true negotiated deal, they voted along with liberal to create organizations to make sure that weights and measures were standardized, regulated and followed. Mr. Paul would just eliminate governments from making sure these rules were met. While traditional conservatives want to go back to the 1950s, libertarians want to go back to the 1800s.
In the 1800s and early 1900s most people never went more than 20 miles from where they lived, lived in farming communities, knew everyone of their neighbors and knew who they traded with personally. If you cheated your neighbor and others knew about it you would be ignored and nobody would trade with you. I hate to wake them up; but, that doesn't happen much anymore and the multinational company that sells you food does not care about nor worry about your personal trade with them because they can just shift where they sell without any consequences. These companies are not just too big to fail, they are too big to care.
I don't think most people would agree with Mr. Paul if they understood his past voting record and the totality of his beliefs. I disagree with Mr. Paul because I believe in America as more than just a territorial area. I believe that we should have a government of people who choose to live in the country (and have the option of leaving if they so desire) and that the country should be by the people and for the people, the people being the key phrase.
I would love the opportunity to interview Mr. Paul and believe he would be honest enough and happy to answer my questions, I don't doubt the man's integrity or sincerity. Having said that, he has confused capitalism with democracy. While he may like Ayn Rand, I prefer Aristotle. Aristotle determined that the only right and best way to regulate society was by having the majority choose the rules, he took it for sake that all societies other than the most primitive always ended up with some having more control than others. He thought that power should be in the hands of the majority rather than a oligarch (small number of controllers) or a monarchy (single rulers by area).
While getting my Bachelor's degree in Political Science with multiple national and university awards and recognitions, I had a very special professor, he taught Political Philosophy. One day he was discussing Plato and Aristotle and I asked if he would define Plato as conservative and Aristotle as liberal, he said the terms did not apply and I have thought about his words for decades and long ago concluded he was correct. Today liberal means allowing people to do what they want and conservative means letting business do what it wants.
A community is a group of people that decides together and lives under the same rules and consequences. I believe in community because I believe the best government is the one that involves as many people who will have to live under the same rules making the rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)