Rick Perry -- Bankers' Newest Victim

[Hansel H]

Quote from Optional:

Are you kidding? You are just noticing this now?
Don't you see what they have been doing to Ron Paul since, well, 1976?
Ron Paul is the banksters worst nightmare.
Rick Perry is just talking bullshit.
If given the choice to print a trillion dollar deficit, you know what he'd do.

Media antagonism to Ron Paul expressed as simply pretending he doesn't exist is shockingly obvious. Media desire to control US opinion is becoming completely transparent. I don't think Ron Paul will be the Republican candidate and he'll be too old for the next round.

Does his son share his views?

 

[hoodooman]

OLDTIME:I've been through all this before. When I was a kid it was the Jews who controlled Hollywood. That's why you very rarely saw John Wayne go to church (unless it was to bust up a wedding or something.)


Wonder why no one ever took a picture of Hitler going to church. Just a thought.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Hansel H:

Media antagonism to Ron Paul expressed as simply pretending he doesn't exist is shockingly obvious. Media desire to control US opinion is becoming completely transparent. I don't think Ron Paul will be the Republican candidate and he'll be too old for the next round.

Does his son share his views?

There is no conspiracy. Ron Paul's ideas are well known and haven't changed. He doesn't "sell papers" and no one wants to read about him. Except for...

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

 

[piezoe]

Quote from plyka:

...If you actually care about fairness, if you care about the little guy, if you care about progress and diversifying power, then pure lassiaz-faire capitalism is the path. There was no episode in human history where more of the average man made the most progress than the late 18th, 19th and very early part of the 20th century. This was a period where government was of absolutely trivial importance. During the time of Jefferson, the Federal government cost about $20 per person (in today's money, lol). The 19th century saw growth rates (estimated or derived from other data since specific growth data was not recorded) in average of 10+ % PER YEAR with ZERO inflation. The dollar of 1913 purchased MORE than the dollar of 1792, not only was there zero inflation, there was minor deflation.

The more the USA moves towwards freedom/capitalism, the more fairer society will be and the more power will be dispursed.

It seems you may have made a mistake and drawn some illogical conclusions. I agree, for the most part, with your appraisal of the current state of the capitalist economy in the U.S., but were I believe you went wrong was to claim that laissez-faire capitalism is good for the little guy!

You can be forgiven, however, because it is a very common mistake to confuse free enterprise, a laissez-faire economic climate, and capitalism. Capitalism by itself is simply an economic system were capital and the means of production are in private hands. The U.S., more than any other large nation, has perfected capitalism. Capitalism can exist either in an atmosphere of free enterprise or with limited free enterprise. In the latter case, capitalism naturally tends to move to what today many are calling corporatism. Others have termed this state of affairs, where those that control large amounts of capital, often in a corporate structure, and use this capital to influence government, as a type of corporate fascism.

My main point is that in actual practice "free enterprise" is the opposite of capitalism. Capitalists, if allowed to under a laissez-faire government, will inevitably drift toward monopolies and cartels, and eventually through their financial power actually succeed in turning governmental action to their own interests. This is the current state of affairs in the U.S. that you alluded to. Capitalists, in practice are reviled by the very idea of free enterprise, though of course they nearly always profess in public to be in favor of it.

A laissez-faire government is not good for the "little guy" because such a government will allow capitalists to run rough shod over labor, as in fact happened during the industrial revolution.

The propensity of capitalism to drift to "corporatism" must be contained by government if free enterprise is to survive other than in name only. That's what's best for the little guy.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from the1:

Alas! A guy who actually understands the inner workings of American Corporatist Politics. Kudos to you plyka! You are one of the few.

The US of 1792 is not the US of 2011. We no longer live in a Capitalistic Society, we live in a Corporatist Society. The US is following the path of Rome almost to the tee. If the US continues on this course -- and it most likely will -- God help the little man.

Well worth the 10 minutes it will take you to read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

The U.S. has perfected capitalism! The corporatism you write of is merely the form that capitalism takes when free enterprise is not sufficiently protected by government, and the capitalists, via their control of capital, are able to bend government policy to their own means.

Capitalism is an economic system where capital and the means of production are in private hands. Since Reagan the U.S. has steadily become more and more a "capitalist" nation.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from adadadog:

After Rick Perry said Ben Benanke should be charged with treason, I have not seen a single positive thing about him said by U.S. media.

Hmmm sounds like a government conspiracy. Where's that AMT guy when you need him?

 

[oldtime]

Quote from piezoe:

It seems you may have made a mistake and drawn some illogical conclusions. I agree, for the most part, with your appraisal of the current state of the capitalist economy in the U.S., but were I believe you went wrong was to claim that laissez-faire capitalism is good for the little guy!

You can be forgiven, however, because it is a very common mistake to confuse free enterprise, a laissez-faire economic climate, and capitalism. Capitalism by itself is simply an economic system were capital and the means of production are in private hands. The U.S., more than any other large nation, has perfected capitalism. Capitalism can exist either in an atmosphere of free enterprise or with limited free enterprise. In the latter case, capitalism naturally tends to move to what today many are calling corporatism. Others have termed this state of affairs, where those that control large amounts of capital, often in a corporate structure, and use this capital to influence government, as a type of corporate fascism.

My main point is that in actual practice "free enterprise" is the opposite of capitalism. Capitalists, if allowed to under a laissez-faire government, will inevitably drift toward monopolies and cartels, and eventually through their financial power actually succeed in turning governmental action to their own interests. This is the current state of affairs in the U.S. that you alluded to. Capitalists, in practice are reviled by the very idea of free enterprise, though of course they nearly always profess in public to be in favor of it.

A laissez-faire government is not good for the "little guy" because such a government will allow capitalists to run rough shod over labor, as in fact happened during the industrial revolution.

The propensity of capitalism to drift to "corporatism" must be contained by government if free enterprise is to survive other than in name only. That's what's best for the little guy.

yeah piezoe, well put. I think we all agree the problem is fascism, but you don't really explain how the government reverses or stops it. I think about it all the time. Unless the elections are rigged we vote for this government.

My hunch is the government can't stop it. I'm not as knowledgable as you, but we agree on the problem and the current state of affairs.

 

[pspr]

Quote from Lucrum:

Hmmm sounds like a government conspiracy. Where's that AMT guy when you need him?

Yeah, AMT will have all the latest news and youtube videos to support a government conspiracy.

Unless they finally caught up with him.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from oldtime:

yeah piezoe, well put. I think we all agree the problem is fascism, but you don't really explain how the government reverses or stops it. I think about it all the time. Unless the elections are rigged we vote for this government.

My hunch is the government can't stop it. I'm not as knowledgable as you, but we agree on the problem and the current state of affairs.

I don't think we can reverse or stop it. The problem is systemic, in my view-- built in defects in the structure of government and the constitution. Most likely outcome is revolution, in 50 to 100 years. That's unfortunately how the major changes in direction come about, isn't it?

By the way, when I said above that free enterprise was the opposite of capitalism that was a completely incorrect and terrible choice of words. Of course free enterprise is NOT the opposite of capitalism. The opposite of capitalism would be where capital and the means of production are held and controlled by the state, as in pure communism. What I should have written, and what would be correct to say, is that free enterprise is "anathema" to capitalists. The best embodiment of capitalism from my point of view would be where there is a neutral body to act as a referee and step in when necessary to put a halt to the excesses of laissez faire capitalism. At times in the past the U.S. Department of Commerce together with the Justice Department has played that proper role, and those were good times for the economy. Sadly, those days are part of a bygone era now.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from piezoe:

I don't think we can reverse or stop it. The problem is systemic, in my view-- built in defects in the structure of government and the constitution. Most likely outcome is revolution, in 50 to 100 years. That's unfortunately how the major changes in direction come about, isn't it?

By the way, when I said above that free enterprise was the opposite of capitalism that was a completely incorrect and terrible choice of words. Of course free enterprise is NOT the opposite of capitalism. The opposite of capitalism would be where capital and the means of production are held and controlled by the state, as in pure communism. What I should have written, and what would be correct to say, is that free enterprise is "anathema" to capitalists. The best embodiment of capitalism from my point of view would be where there is a neutral body to act as a referee and step in when necessary to put a halt to the excesses of laissez faire capitalism. At times in the past the U.S. Department of Commerce together with the Justice Department has played that proper role, and those were good times for the economy. Sadly, those days are part of a bygone era now.

Well done, sir. This, and your previous.