Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Capitalism versus Corporatism

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 8, 2011, 12:19 a.m. EST by Dutchess (499)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Capitalism is when the markets react to supply and demand and the monetary system is backed by something of intrinsic value to keep money from inflation, It is THE regulation to keep a monetary system in check.

Corporatism is the merger between Big Banks/Big Corp and corrupt Govt and is backed by fiat money ( money not backed by anything and merely ordered to be printed off the press)

What is failing the people today.......is NOT Capitalism. We do NOT have free markets with sound money. We have Corporatism....the merger between Big Corp/Banks and Govt backed by fiat money.

Both political parties practice the exact same format of economics...Keynesian economics backed by fiat money...which is the root cause of today's.........corporatism.

Please people Wake up...The left keeps confusing Corporatism with Capitalism and the right keeps confusing Corporatism with socialism. But in all essence Corporatism is Corporate welfare!

135 Comments

135 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by leftistperson (95) 2 years ago

I think very interesting that nobody never translates the "Carta del Lavoro" to the English language. It's very strange. The "Carta del Lavoro" is the main ideological document of the Italian fascism. It was written by Benito Mussolini himself. It's the main "declaration of principles" of the fascists.

Maybe it's because nobody wants to deal with some articles of the "Carta", like the articles 7 and 9.

Article 7 of the fascist "Carta del Lavoro" says:

"The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation"

(Italian: "Lo Stato corporativo considera l'iniziativa privata nel campo della produzione come lo sfruttamento più efficace e più utile nell'interesse della Nazione")

Article 9 of the fascist "Carta del Lavoro" says:

"State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient"

(Italian: "L'intervento dello Stato nella produzione economica ha luogo soltanto quando manchi o sia insufficiente la iniziativa privata")

Fascism is Capitalism.

[-] -2 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Not quite...Capitalism required numerous factors. 1) sound money 2) a soundl legal system which protects the Individual and its property....( See Hayek, Road to Serfdom)

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Perhaps you are confusing Capitalism with a Mythical Free-market Fantasy sold to people by the ruling class,. as LaughinWillow points out;

"Capitalism, actually, is simply an economic system where the means of production are owned privately, generally by a class of elites who invest their wealth into the system. It doesn't require the system to be backed by anything, necessarily"

Sound money and legal system are just not covered in the tenets of "capitalism",. this free-market evangelism leads only to mega corporations and fudalism,. the only logical outcome when you remove all regulations on business, and banking.

[-] 2 points by abusalman (47) 2 years ago

The "End of History" hubris of the neo liberal economy fantasies and fanatics, is just as crazy as the communist fantasies and fanatics, and they both end up with oligarchical fascism. We need to abolish interest debt based money and transactions, and only allow useful and beneficial production and commercial transactions with responsibility to sustainability, and without monopolies that by nature corrupt.

See as posted below links

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Hm...read Hayek 'Road to Serfdom'. Nobel Peace prize winner in economics....He does a better job in explaining than the Libertarian movement in this country ;)

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

a lot has changed since the 1940s,. Hayek's thoughts on collective organisation is near 100 years old. his complaints like "Centralized planning is inherently undemocratic, because it requires that the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people.,." are no longer even relevant. We are now networked locally, nationally, even worldwide! We can now have everyone's voice heard democratically,. we can set limits on resource exploitation, business activity, and banking practises that are the will of the people not the 1 %.

We can have a FAIR economics,. constrained by reason, fuelled by creativity, and with way more freedom than we have now! The current system is not freedom it is corporatism/fascism.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Actually.....no it hasn't. History is merely a very short story of much of the same.....repeating itself. The very danger Hayek is warning against .....tyranny accomplished through collectivism ( when people surrender their civil liberties including economic freedoms) to a central entity is playing out TODAY through the collectivst corporate welfare that is paid for by the individual taxpayer.. You got it all backwards. Your civil liberties are taken away at a record pace by our centralized federal govt through numerous unconstitutional pieces of legislation. The groundwork was laid during the Bush administration and the impllementation is now happening under the Obama administration. Glenn Greenwald, constitutional attorney at Salon dot com just came out with an excellent book called "With Liberty and Justice for ..........some' the TWO TIER JUSTICE SYSTEM! His interview explains it in the detail on today's NPR.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

so you are against the government,. so why do you promote the corporations?? The problem is the two are the same,. I don't got it backwards. the government is controlled by the corporations.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

The Government today.....is the corrupting factor in the chain , that allows corporations to monopolize at the expanse of the taxpayers Individual Freedoms guaranteed under the U.S Constitution.

I am NOT promoting corporations. I am promoting INDIVIDUAl liberty! Unless freedom lays with the individual and it is backed by a sound legal system, can freedom not exist and will monopolize through corrupt govt.

Glenn Greenwald had an interview on NPR this morning and he explained it in such an excellent way. He wrote a new book called "With liberty and justice for some' the TWO tier justice system!

Where the elite and high govt officials are never held accountable through our justice system while the little guy is incarcerated at world record high percentages in the U,S. With only 5% of the world population but 25% of the incarceration rate world wide!

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

yes I know,. all you free marketers,. that go around propagandising for the mythic free market, just fail to see, that arguing for the elimination of regulations is corporatism.., the regulations that effect people tend to be local,. like zoning by-laws about where I can build a shed. Not toxic emissions regulations that constrain "business",. the type of business that follows a corporate business model based on endless growth on a finite planet. there is no accounting for externalities or eco-damage in the free market that only measures profits.,. the very basis of your capitalism is exploitation.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Well said'

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

It depends on what aspect of regulation you are talking about. And I think there is a need to be rather specific here.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Ok...So...the SEC, Security and Exchange Commission.....( government) shredded........9000 documents that would have incriminated Goldman Sachs and other big banks...see Rolling Stones Magazine and investigation by Matt Taibi...from Sept. The g o v e r n m e n t.....aided the banks! And Goldman Sachs is sitting in the White House as Chief of Staff when Rahm Emanuel was replaced......by a former Goldman Sachs executive..... We do NOT have Capitalism. We do NOT have free markets. We have controlled markets where government is USED by Big Corp/Banks for the gain of corporations.

In all essence today we have Big Corp/Banks in bed with corrupt Govt ( Corporatism) VERSUS the Small business/credit unions and the Individual.

It is so sad you cannot distinguish true free market ( which requires a strong legal system as is picked apart by Glenn Greenwald ( who is on the left side of the political spectrum by the way) and true free makret capitalism where government is SUPPOSED to provide oversight and accountability ( and not the actions the SEC ( govt) has given us.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I'm gonna Google it.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Now that's what I'm talking about. Exactly. But, you know, it's not like we didn't know, only that it has been articulated.

[-] 3 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

Keeping capitalism isn't going to fix any of the problems though.

You're still going to have unemployment because the demand necessary to create jobs won't suddenly manifest by removing corporate person-hood or taking money out of politics.

Capitalist economies require constant expansion and profit. To cut labor costs, technological automation and outsourcing are implemented, and it's likely these things will continue even if small changes are made within the system.

You're still going to have poverty and environmental destruction because 'intrinsic value' is still placed above the environment and human needs.

I see capitalism as the root cause of the crisis to be perfectly honest.

But I will say the only thing that is important right now is the restoration of the democratic process.

Once people are able to decide for themselves what they want to do, then we shall see.

[-] 2 points by deGrene (199) 2 years ago

In my thinking, it's not simply Capitalism that is a problem; its expansionist ecomonic theories. These don't have to be limited to Capitalism.

As long as any economic system is built on the idea that it musat always grow and expand, there will be these periodic upheavals and nosedives. What is needed is an evenly sustainable economic system that provides for the needs of all while allowing for individual pursuit of happiness in what we do.

Not an easy task, but then, what worth having is?

[-] 0 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

we don't have capitalism to keep, most of what we have is crony capitalism.

the root cause of the crisis was a monetary policy by the third central bank of the US that made money too cheap and for too long. this led to mixed signals to the market and froth in housing that went unchecked and unaltered by a change in policy, a policy would ultimately provided all of the air to blow up the bubble. in a true capital system, that monetary policy would not have been too easy for too long - and would have not been set by men in the first place but a market that rapidly changed to account for the actions in the economy.

[-] 3 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Well there is the quote by Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini...'Fascism in all essence is the merger between state power and corporations!'

[-] 2 points by WatTyler (263) 2 years ago

America does not have a free market system. It has a system in which the corporate oligarchs pick the winners and losers; the winners are them, the loser is America.

[-] 2 points by Teacher (469) 2 years ago

good point. I don't agree 100% but I do agree that the problem isn't the free market or the social safety net, its the merger of business and government power.

[-] 2 points by Quark (236) 2 years ago

Thanks for the clarification. I needed this with the dumblocks around who think America and the World will fix itself magically.

[-] 2 points by abusalman (47) 2 years ago

Subject: We need office space, sponsors, books... etc ...to take it all to the next level,
Yeh its getting cold, and lets be real, very real ... Are we going to be outside all winter? We need to perpetuate this movement, and move it all to the next level. We need permanent outdoor space, permanent office space, donors, sponsors private and business and NGO and even – gasp – corporate. We need pamphlets, books of academic scholarly nature, coffee table books...etc... etc, and of course, we need continual web presence along with real outdoor presence. We need to Occupy permanent volunteer jobs that can rotate among volunteers, because some people of us have - yes oh yes, gasping for air yes- “jobs “and other responsibilities of family, school-college, professional and personal development, and so on. Do we want paid positions and an organization, and is it possible without getting co-opted and astro-turfed ??? Something to explore?
The idea is to take the ideas of protest about corporate greed, and about revolutionary change to right the wrong and even let’s call it evil, of immoral and unjust and corrupt laws and lobbying, and the systemic economic imbalances due to corporate influence on government... and Federal Reserve Money based in interest paid by the masses of Main Street to the monopoly of a few influential “too big to fail and jail” banks and large financial corporations, here on Wall Street or hidden in tax havens across the globe... in essence private banksters/gangsters who milk us all out of hard earned honest work based money... etc... by their interest(usury) based moneys. We need to move on to a higher level. The Arab Spring needs to become an American Fall .... the fall and collapse of corporate influence, of Wall street influence and of greed by debt structures of interest based financial instruments on Federal Reserve Fiat Money and currencies and bonds and derivatives, speculative short selling etc ...that exploit Main Street. We need to change the internal and external structures of exploitation, colonization and imperialism and systemic racism and class privileges of the super rich elite.
There are thousands even millions who are with Occupy Wall Street (symbol of Corporate financial greed) and Occupy K Street (in Washington DC symbol of corporate lobbying for special business interests of Wall Street against public interests of Main Street) and son across the globe in the system of capitalistic corporate collusion (Fascism by definition, or some call it crony capitalism, or let’s call is OUTRIGHT THEFT. The entire system needs to be changed.

[-] 2 points by LaughinWillow (215) 2 years ago

Capitalism, actually, is simply an economic system where the means of production are owned privately, generally by a class of elites who invest their wealth into the system. It doesn't require the system to be backed by anything, necessarily. In fact, money is not "sound" to begin with, as it is a complete fabrication and a pretty obvious means toward the oppression of people and the divestment of human beings from their birthright on this planet, which is occupation of land and use of natural resources.

I don't disagree with your assessment of corporatism or its detrimental effect on society, but I very strongly disagree with your belief that capitalism would have prevented the situation we are in. In fact, capitalism inevitably leads to the situation we are in because it creates extreme social stratification, which results in the same type of feudal ruling class we've seen throughout human history. It's social stratification that is the problem. Unfortunately, the solution cannot come from a state government. But the idea that we can cast off the state at this point in history is nearly impossible - people cannot even imagine that living without the state is an option, or "normal." They don't even know that the state has only existed for 1% of human history.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Actually both Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek make very clear that Capitalism has to have accountability factors like sound monetary policies and a strong legal framework for example...

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Mr. Smith also speaks about market accountability through a non partial Referee. He also said, "as soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

The Government is supposed to be that non partial referree to proivde accountability and oversight. But as long as money is in politics...greed and corruption will prevail.

[-] 2 points by Krankie (140) 2 years ago

Dutchess, thank you. But there is another aspect to this. Because most Americans consider themselves to be capitalists, CEOs are hiding their greed and lust for power behind Capitalism and claiming that anyone that is against their behavior is against Capitalism - which they hope (and they seem to be correct) will result in them being protected by the majority of Americans. When OWS supporters claim to be anti-Capitalism, they are doing EXACTLY what the corporates want. We are playing right into their hands by confusing greed (or Corporatism) with Capitalism. If we want to have more than a handful of Americans to support this movement, we HAVE to stop saying that we are anti-Capitalism.

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

YES. This is the key to uniting the Tea Party with OWS.

[-] 2 points by MuadDib (154) 2 years ago

Capitalism necessarily evolves into corporatism.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Corporatism is a collectivist idea. Capitalism is not. But Nazism, Fascism/Corporatism and Socialism are....all collectivist ideologies

[-] 2 points by deGrene (199) 2 years ago

Corresction: socialism is not collectivist. The Right has succeeded in perverting socialism into being synomomous with communism. They are not the same. In communism, there is no private ownership and the state controls all commerce and services. In socialism, all commerce and (most) property are privately owned. The government merely insures that the basic needs of the people are met -- BASIC housing, BASIC nutrition, equitable health care, legal care and education.

And, in reality, collectivism is not part of Marxism. The Soviet Union, form which collectivism originated in the modern world, was not a Marxist state. It was a Leninist state which Stalin then perverted into a Stalinist state. It was Stalin who created and implemented collectivism; not Marx.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Socialism IS collectivist. Friedrich Hayek ( Nobel Peace prize winner in economics) explains that in detail in his book 'Road to Serfdom. Socialism is NOT synonomous with communism or nazism or fascism but they ALL are collectivist ideologies where Individual Liberties are given up to a CENTRAL entity. The world collectivism describes the surrender of INDIVIDUAL liberty of some sort.

[-] 2 points by deGrene (199) 2 years ago

Using Hayek's and Moyra Grant's definition of Collectivism as being "any philosophy or system that puts any kind of group (such as a class, nation, race, society, state, etc.) before the individual," the only truly non-collectivist philosophies then would be absolute libertarianism or absolute anarchy since in every other form of government values the needs of society above the needs of the individual. Consider, using this argument, what you would suggest as a completely non-collectivist society: there could be no laws referring to, in any way, the possession, limitation, or use of firearms since to do so would put the needs of a particular group above those of individual freedom. To bring it down to a more personal level, how can a government allow you to own so that you may have the right to self-defense and yet deny me the right to feel secure by banning firearms?

There is no such thing as a society that does not have diverse subgroups and classes. By supporting the rights of minorities, the rights of those who believe in white supremacy are, at least, limited. By allowing women equal rights as men, the government ignores and prohibits the rights of those religious sects that believe in all earnestness, that men are divinely superior to women.

Those who have commented here on the collectivism of one form of government or another are being very selective and subjective in their arguments. The fact of the matter is, any organization, any society, any group of friends, for that matter, is, under the definition above, collectivist. In fact, it is impossible to have a functioning society without some collectivism as defined above.

If you know of one, please point it out to me so I can study it.

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"the only truly non-collectivist philosophies then would be absolute libertarianism or absolute anarchy" Which is why Hayek, Rand, and Paul are the patron saints of the anarcho-capitalist crowd. "Dutchess" likes to sell herself as a progressive that thinks Paul is swell. She's a hardcore anarcho-capitalist like the rest of them, and no friend of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by deGrene (199) 2 years ago

I think you are right, Lockean. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Man oh man the confusion is rampant.

Does any of you know the actual difference between Friedrich Hayek ( Nobel Peace prize winner in economics) Ayn Rand ( who does NOT believe in altruism) and Ron Lawl ( who DOES believe in altruism) cuz quite frankly to group all of them together because they may have an agreement of some sort is very VERY sloppy. I can spell it out for you but would love for people to do their own homework.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Man oh man the confusion is rampant.

Does any of you know the actual difference between Friedrich Hayek ( Nobel Peace prize winner in economics) Ayn Rand ( who does NOT believe in altruism) and Ron Lawl ( who DOES believe in altruism) cuz quite frankly to group all of them together because they may have an agreement of some sort is very VERY sloppy. I can spell it out for you but would love for people to do their own homework.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Wrong...Hayek is so far removed from Anarchy. Fact is the libertarian movement in America doesn't do a very good job in conveying the brilliant economic platform of Hayek who was by all means a Nobel Peace prize winner because of his contributions in economics. Sorry pal....you appear to be trolling here. Pick up his book. It is brilliant and not at all anything arachism.

[-] 1 points by deGrene (199) 2 years ago

I should point out that Hayek was not exactly considered an economic demigod. Walter Block analyzed Hayek's writings and came to the same conclusion many of us had. In "Hayek's Road to Serfdom". Journal of Libertarian Studies (Center for Libertarian Studies), 1996, Walter Block concluded that Hayek, in "Serfdom" had actually advocated many of the same ideas that he said he opposed. In other words, rather than advocating socialism, Hayek actually advocated Libertariansm and the free market ideals of that movement.

And while there are those whose ideas are brilliant, I would be very careful in adopting any single person as a messiah of thought. Those who do so normally find themselves mislead into uncomfortable (to say the least) situations. Anyone who reads one person's idas to teh exclusion of others are run the risk of closing their minds just as much as those who shun all ideas by all people.

Hayek contains some good ideas, but he, nor anyone else, is the savior of the world. For one thing, when he wrote Serfdom, the world was entirely different than it is now. We speak of Constitutional literalists who want to dissect each and every word of the Consitution and enforce the letter of the law as seen by the mythical founding fathers. But, in fact, those men had no way of imagining the world as it exists today and could not possibly have written ro thought anything so profound as to be completely relevant 250 years later. The same is true of philosophy, economic and otherwise. As a philosopher myself, I must understand that my observations and opinions (for that is what philosophy is and nothing more) are valid only so far as the world I observe. This is the basic idea behind existentialism's Einsteinian "relativist" principle: that the world we know is no more than the world we observe and that anything else is nothing more than a belief or an concept. Therefore any philosophical approach I -- or Hayek or anyone else for that matter -- create or pronounce is nothing more than my own analysis of the life I have experienced and analyzed.

Platos and Decartes observations, while containing certain ides that are still valid today, certainly are not as applicable or as relevant today as they were when they were written. Neither are Hayek's. Not only are we living in a different time, but we are living in a different society. This can be broken down further from my own personal experience. I grew up in Ohio, but moved, for a time, to Missisippi before returning to Ohio. The differences in culture and the approach to everyday life are as different even with that 800 mile radius as they are between the US and France, for instance. So the philosophical approach I would use in Ohio would be only partially relevant in Missisippi.

Hayek came from Germany and grew up there in a time of tremendous change. Germany had been a unified country for less than 25 years and a national governmental system was still in its infancy at the time of Hayek's birth. When he was 14, the Frist World War broke out and with its end, when he was not yet 20, the deprivations and the Allied sanctions against Germany were imposed. His major learning period took place during the deprivations of that period and the excesses of the Nazi regime of the 30s, leading into the Second World War.

You must consider these things when judging the motivations and development of his ideas -- as well as anyone else's. In other words, Hayek's world is not our world and his philosphy must be viewed through the lens of those diferences.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Austrian, neoliberal and other variants of fundamentalist free market economics are different from anarcho-capitalism by degree. Troll = Ron Lawl campaign staff pretending to be otherwise.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Neo liberalism is merely the other side of the same rotten coin called neo conservatism ( basically the two party establishment system). Free market capitalism ( Adam Smith) is not equal to anarchism whatsoever. I am sure there are different streamings of libertarians and some may be anarchists. Anarchism is still the opposite of Liberty. Nobody is arguing we need a lawless society. By all means free market capitalism CANNOT function without a strong and sound legal and monetary system.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Don't bring Adam Smith into your free market fundamentalism. Progressive taxes were his idea, and he advocated capitalism on the (admittedly, by him, utopian) ideal of perfect liberty providing PERFECT EQUALITY).

Noam Chomsky refutes the Neo-Capitalist Libertarians: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkXhF2DJ7fc

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

""while the The Road to Serfdom makes a strong case against centrally-planned economies, it appears only lukewarm in its support of pure laissez-faire capitalism, with Hayek even going so far as to say that "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism".[18]. In the book, Hayek writes that the government has a role to play in the economy through the monetary system, work-hours regulation, and institutions for the flow of proper information.""

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

btw I agree that the American Libertarian movement is lacking big time. But reading Friedrich Hayek , he was brilliant and detailed...in his explanations. No wonder he was a Nobel Peace prize winner in economics.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Maybe time for Noam Chomsky to read Hayek?

[-] 0 points by leftistperson (95) 2 years ago

You are totally RIGHT!

[-] 2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

thank you for posting this, i keep running around putting out the fires like whack a mole.

[-] 2 points by Qaenyin (14) 2 years ago

It's worth noting that current america is Fascist, not Capitalist. People might commonly associate that with such incomparable things as Nazi Germany, but while they were indeed fascist, fascism was not their defining factor.

If you want a better comparison to what modern america is like, look at the Roman Empire. And then look at what it was that destroyed that empire.

[-] 2 points by leftistperson (95) 2 years ago

Fascism IS capitalism. Read the "Carta del Lavoro", the main "declaration of principles" of the fascists...

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” Benito Musolini

[-] 2 points by leftistperson (95) 2 years ago

Read the "Carta del Lavoro". Period.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

"Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority ... a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State." Benito Musolini


Capitalism is NOT collectivist!

[-] 0 points by Flsupport (578) 2 years ago

The primary driver in fascist states is nationalism.

[-] 1 points by SirPoeticJustice (628) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Alec Tsoucatos for Treasury Secretary!

[-] 1 points by CHANTER (33) 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cbUAwCE7JVY#t=48s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxmtreWQoVs&feature=player_profilepage

This is a rather anonymous SONG-CHANT-RANT offering, that will hopefully unify our message on the streets. Imparting some basic historical information that has lead to the continued debasing of free forms of Government. Where a select group of power seekers never seem to have enough of anything, including us.This is a very serious time for the FREE Global Community, our only weapon is Martin Luther King's legacy. They further try to discredit us with accusations of not having a coherent message when their only endgame is to further in-slave us! Abusing others until there is only two classes the Haves and Have-Not's. we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more

nothing’s been the same since jfk eisenhower warned us it would get this way a vast military-industrial-complex a vast military-industrial-complex

were out here to show the one percentors we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more

oly norquist pledged most congress (oly’ = satire oliver north)
to his power lil’ oly’ norquist pledged most congress (piglet)
to his power

we’ know who you are were’ tired of our voices not counting

we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more

were out on the streets to get our “countries” back

until foreign trade benefits---the 99%

were out on the streets to get our “countries” back

until foreign trade benefits---the 99%

were’ just not gonna’ take it no more were’ just not gonna’ take it no more were’ just not gonna’ take it no more

so, your’ spreadin’ democracy all over --the world your’ spreadin’ democracy all over --the world

it’s gotten’ so corrupt even we---don’t understand it!

so, your’ spreadin’ democracy all over --the world spreadin’ your’ democracy all over --the world

it’s gotten’ so corrupt even we---don’t understand it!

bring back our soldiers’s your cor-poor-et wars are all over bring back our soldiers’s your cor-poor-et wars are all over

were out here to show the one percentors we’ just not gonna’ take it no more we’ just not gonna’ take it no more

it’s too bad we hav-at spell it out but liars never listen they just -run their mouths

a thousand point of light all over the world

a new world order the bil-dah-burgers can go to hell

were’ just not gonna’ take it no more were’ just not gonna’ take it no more were’ just not gonna’ take it no more------

were’ just not gonna’ take it no more!

[-] 1 points by EAL (3) 2 years ago

does somene know where to find a list of community banks and credit unions that do not gouge their customers with hidden fees and duplicitous business practices? i would like to see an exodus from citibank, chase, bank of america ... and

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

ask your local credit unions. They are usually the place to go to.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

So that explains what one of the templars (from assassin's creed brotherhood) meant.

[-] 1 points by BonaFidePublius (93) 2 years ago

Yep. and thats why people must understand that political ideologies hold nothing in this movement. Everything else comes second, the end of corporatism needs to end now.

[-] 1 points by PhilArthur (54) 2 years ago

I can get on board with that... Regardless, one step towards fixing it all is recognizing that only people are people and making the law of the land institute that reality in practice. Corporate Personhood has proven itself to be dangerous and extremely inequitable.

[-] 1 points by Redsuperficiality (96) 2 years ago

Marx wrote mostly about capitalism. He wrote a lot so the first thing that can be said is, capitalism is complex. The very titles of Marx's major works are clear about his subject matter: 'Capital' (in three volumes) and 'Theories of Surplus Value' (three more). He wrote very little about socialism or communism and what he did write was generally scathing criticism of Utopian socialist and communist ideas and perspectives. Of course the reason he concentrated on the exposition of Capitalism was his commitment to freedom. For him it was always the need to understand capitalism to be able to actually go beyond it. This is the way freedom works. Not knowing is the way capitalism works: the left and right can trade insults.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Maybe if we went back to capitalism from the 19th century, we'd be fine.

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 2 years ago

Good point..Corporate is basic fascist as in military structured pyramid. Corporations are the problem..

Co-operatives offer a solution..

to own what you produce is the basis of capitalism which is a basic freedom.

Who ever controls the money supply wins in capitalism..We are letting private corporations control the money supply that's the problem. Why cant the money supply be controlled by the people?

[-] 1 points by bernethau (1) 2 years ago

If you want to read the exciting future that we have in store for our children and grandchildren under unbridled capitalism, fleshed out in all its horror, read The Joad Cycle, a speculative fiction novel of America as an autocratic capitalist utopia, where the poor are executed if they cannot generate enough wealth or cost too much to be alive.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

The poor are already executed around the world...in the name of corporatism..

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

It is true that corporatism is not the same as capitalism.

However corporatism is the next logical step in a system such as capitalism built upon a foundation of competition.

Competition emphasizes inequality by rewarding those who 'have' and punishing those who 'have not'. Acquisition is the name of the game and money is the scorekeeper.

No matter how many regulations are imposed, over time groups will find ways around the regulations through their superior purchasing power so that they can gain a greater advantage in this game of acquisition. Groups that refuse to act unethically will lose their advantage to other groups.

The only way to prevent new forms of corruption in the future is to create a system which emphasizes collaboration rather than competition. This is why democracy is superior to tyranny.

We need a new economic system which is collaborative and capitalism just isn't designed that way.

I recommend those interested look into a Resource Based Economy.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Actually, Corporatism is a form of collectivism and it is collectivism that fosters corporatism. Collectivism is when people surrender their individual liberties of some sort to a central entity and this central entity then gains control through concensus. Capitalism, true free market is the protection of Individual liberty and requieres a strong legal system and sound monetary policy to keep capitalism in check. Those two requirements......strong legal accountability and sound monetary policy are absent which have resulted into the collectivist corporatism where welfare for the big corp and banks is guaranteed by the government and has the individual pick up the tab through the national debt and taxes.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

This perceived collectivism is still within a competitive environment. That is why monopolies are so dangerous.

There is no permanent method of ensuring legal accountability nor sound monetary policies. Unethical corporations and businesses will continue to search and fight these temporary fixes however they can because infinite growth/acquisition by business is promoted in a monetary system.

A true free market is only sound if everyone collaboratively agrees to act ethically and abide by the rules. However the incentive to break the rules for personal gain will continue to exist in a free market.

Laws therefore then must be enforced to prevent unforeseen methods of collaboration in a competitive system. Replace the incentive for competition (money) with a collaborative alternative (abundant access to goods/services) and regulation/laws are no longer needed.

http://vimeo.com/13029324

Transitioning out of the monetary system however isn't as straight forward. In anycase, collaboration is necessary.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

I will have to sleep on that one ;) But I will watch your vid.

[-] 1 points by Argentina (178) from Puerto Madryn, Chubut 2 years ago

Agree

For the left: Captalism is not the trouble, the trouble was that the rules and rols of goverment was wrong. Goverment must take care of education, healthcare, securyti.

For the right: Capilasim is not the trouble, the truoble is that the corporations, , banks, whants to put into captilaims things like education, health care, security (militar, police). Capitalism cant have conections for those.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I think I agree. I think the BIG corps have gotten too BIG. At great expense to society. Whatever benefits (lower prices?) these BIG corps MIGHT provide, is being outweighed by a higher overall cost to our society. I have been wondering, whatever happened to Anti-trust laws? Does Anti-Trust need to be stricter? Would that help?

[-] 1 points by deGrene (199) 2 years ago

I can only repeat the words of Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations":

"For every wealthy man, there must be 500 poor."

Any system that requires the majority of its people to live in poverty is evil as far as I am concerned.

[-] 1 points by RabbleRouser (4) 2 years ago

I'm starting to worry and maybe even...is there even a difference anymore between the two??

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

don't forget pharmaceutical and health insurance fascists. Apparently, they have been able to write many of the 2,000 page universal healthcare bill.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 2 years ago

'Capitalism' refers to the private ownership of the means of production. I do not really approve of this.

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 2 years ago

Big mistake to make these protests anti capatalist.

Corporate = fascist ie heirackhy chain of command

Capatalism has little to do with anything..It just means we are free to own stuff..

Please dont make this movement so a big corporate government own our produce...Its exactly what the fascist elite want

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

amen!

[-] 1 points by abusalman (47) 2 years ago

opps sorry for repeat

[-] 1 points by abusalman (47) 2 years ago

Obama said that what happened on Wall Street ... was immoral but not illegal! Wow ,,, he admits it,,, but as if he doesn’t understand that what this means is that the system is totally corrupt, to benefit the rich elites (and their vassals and retainers) since it allows and makes entirely LEGAL all kinds of major fraud and financial dishonesty, like selling of “TOXIC” products (bundled and wrapped up in deceitful packages so they themselves can’t even understand the complexity of who owns what) to poison the whole system, while the corporate banksters get bailouts and make millions and billions for their special luxuries, and "skim off” the transactions of millions even billions of people, while Main street suffers and the middle and working classes are systematically purposefully destroyed and decimated. If a grocer or farmer or manufacturer sold “toxic” products, he would go to jail, but here the taxpayers give “the too big to fail and too big to jail” banks what they call “bailouts” (welfare) and the corporate CEO's make record profits and bonuses, and the FED profits, and then they do NOT keep their end of the deal and loan out the money to the people asking for commercial and home loans. More and more crimes.
Hmm,,, note that Islamic law allows honest beneficial work, production, and trading and commerce, which helps the real people of the real economy, and totally forbids any interest based debt which is the main reason for this exploitive totally “Legal Yet Immoral” of the western form of capitalistic economic system, which systematically exploits many types of workers and businesses and makes the richer more richer in elite privileges, and allows lobbying for special “people are corporations” interests, and systemically makes the poor and working classes poorer and more and more poor disenfranchised. Do not be fooled by the corporate media and propaganda of the islamaphobes. The Occupy Wall Street movement appears to waking up to some of this greed and fraud (until it is hijacked or co-opted ), about the horrendous extent of the fraud and harm that the web of debt by Federal Reserve System, Derivatives, and related financial and foreign currency transactions, that is privately owned to profit from us all by taxing us all through interest payments on these DOLLARS and other currencies for the benefit of the too big to fail and jail banksters, ....the house of fraudulent cards is beginning to shake and starting to fall down ... The pressure and momentum needs to be increased to produce and interest-free economy of honest trades, business and commercial activity. See Terrorism by Economic Collapse, debt bondage, money as debt on interest, etc http://terrorismbreedsterrorism.wordpress.com/terrorism-topics/terrorism-by-economic-collapse/ Derivatives ‘Mother of All Bubbles’ exploding http://inlightofrecentevents.wordpress.com/derivatives-%E2%80%98mother-of-all-bubbles%E2%80%99-exploding/ And Hedge Hogs; Gold Man’s Sacks; “financial terrorist attacks;” and the Obama sellout: http://abusalmandeyauddeeneberle.wordpress.com/hedge-hogs-gold-man%E2%80%99s-sacks-%E2%80%9Cfinancial-terrorist-attacks%E2%80%9D-and-the-obama-sellout/ And SUPER COMMITTEE BIG BANK ROBBERY and “this sucker” going down http://abusalmandeyauddeeneberle.wordpress.com/super-committee-big-bank-robbery-and-%E2%80%9Cthis-sucker%E2%80%9D-going-down/ And Super rich 1% vs 99 %; Terrorism Cycle: Guillotines: Occupy “ALL” streets. http://terrorismbreedsterrorism.wordpress.com/super-rich-1-vs-99-terrorism-cycle-guillotines-occupy-all-streets/

[-] 1 points by MakeLuvNotBillions (113) 2 years ago

Corporate Lobbyists STOP Occupying DC!

[-] 1 points by LukeBigJohn (7) 2 years ago

Hi people, you have all my respect and support. Corporate greed is certanily a great cancer of this world but is not the root cause of all evil. In europe and specifically in Italy, corporations do not have such a leverage on politics but, as you may very well know, things are not going much better than in U.S. In my opinion the world corruption can be greatly reduced if every protest demands a DIRECT DEMOCRACY. If people replace the congress then they can stop all the laws and bailouts and wars they want to stop. Today is not hard to gather votes electronically (like the youtube thums up, for example). In a direct democracy people can decide how much should be the salary of a politician and if it is not much more remunerative than any other 'normal job' then only the ones who really care for the wellness of the nation will remain in office. Let's think about this together.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

but then we have a majority mob rule where a minority of any kind can be lynched for whatever reason. Not a good thing.We are a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected representatives. Maybe get money out of politics?

[-] 1 points by abusalman (47) 2 years ago

Obama said that what happened on Wall Street ... was immoral but not illegal! Wow ,,, he admits it,,, but as if he doesn’t understand that what this means is that the system is totally corrupt, to benefit the rich elites (and their vassals and retainers) since it allows and makes entirely LEGAL all kinds of major fraud and financial dishonesty, like selling of “TOXIC” products (bundled and wrapped up in deceitful packages so they themselves can’t even understand the complexity of who owns what) to poison the whole system, while the corporate banksters get bailouts and make millions and billions for their special luxuries, and "skim off” the transactions of millions even billions of people, while Main street suffers and the middle and working classes are systematically purposefully destroyed and decimated. If a grocer or farmer or manufacturer sold “toxic” products, he would go to jail, but here the taxpayers give “the too big to fail and too big to jail” banks what they call “bailouts” (welfare) and the corporate CEO's make record profits and bonuses, and the FED propfits, and then they do NOT keep their end of the deal and loan out the money to the people asking for commercial and home loans. More and more crimes.
Hmm,,, note that Islamic law allows honest beneficial work, production, and trading and commerce, which helps the real people of the real economy, and totally forbids any interest based debt which is the main reason for this exploitive totally “Legal Yet Immoral” of the western form of capitalistic economic system, which systematically exploits may types of workers and businesses and makes the richer more richer in elite privileges, and allos lobbying for special “people are corporations” interests, and systemically makes the poor and working classes poorer and more and more poor disenfranchised. Do not be fooled by the corporate media and propaganda of the islamaphobes. The Occupy Wall Street movement appears to waking up to some of this greed and fraud (until it is hijacked or co-opted ), about the horrendous extent of the fraud and harm that the web of debt by Federal Reserve System, Derivatives, and related financial and foreign currency transactions, that is privately owned to profit from us all by taxing us all through interest payments on these DOLLARS and other currencies for the benefit of the too big to fail and jail banksters, ....the house of fraudulent cards is beginning to shake and starting to fall down ... The pressure and momentum needs to be increased to produce and interest-free economy of honest trades, business and commercial activity. See Terrorism by Economic Collapse, debt bondage, money as debt on interest, etc http://terrorismbreedsterrorism.wordpress.com/terrorism-topics/terrorism-by-economic-collapse/ Derivatives ‘Mother of All Bubbles’ exploding http://inlightofrecentevents.wordpress.com/derivatives-%E2%80%98mother-of-all-bubbles%E2%80%99-exploding/ And Hedge Hogs; Gold Man’s Sacks; “financial terrorist attacks;” and the Obama sellout: http://abusalmandeyauddeeneberle.wordpress.com/hedge-hogs-gold-man%E2%80%99s-sacks-%E2%80%9Cfinancial-terrorist-attacks%E2%80%9D-and-the-obama-sellout/ And SUPER COMMITTEE BIG BANK ROBBERY and “this sucker” going down http://abusalmandeyauddeeneberle.wordpress.com/super-committee-big-bank-robbery-and-%E2%80%9Cthis-sucker%E2%80%9D-going-down/ And Super rich 1% vs 99 %; Terrorism Cycle: Guillotines: Occupy “ALL” streets. http://terrorismbreedsterrorism.wordpress.com/super-rich-1-vs-99-terrorism-cycle-guillotines-occupy-all-streets/

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

very nice posting also!

[-] 1 points by abusalman (47) 2 years ago

Corporatism means fascism by definition. We must expose the reality that this economic system is corrupt and slanted to help the rich privileged class, and the corporate “Powers that Be,” and yet ... with exposure to the masses, (and Occupy Wall Street movement appears to be masses until it is hijacked or co-opted ), about the horrendous extent of the fraud and harm that the web of debt by Federal Reserve System, Derivatives, and related financial and foreign currency transactions, that is privately owned to profit from us all by taxing us all through interest payments on these DOLLARS and other currencies for the benefit of the too big to fail and jail banksters, ....the house of fraudulent cards is beginning to shake and starting falling down ... The pressure and momentum needs to be increased to produce and interest-free economy of honest trades, business and commercial activity. See Terrorism by Economic Collapse, debt bondage, money as debt on interest, etc http://terrorismbreedsterrorism.wordpress.com/terrorism-topics/terrorism-by-economic-collapse/ Derivatives ‘Mother of All Bubbles’ exploding http://inlightofrecentevents.wordpress.com/derivatives-%E2%80%98mother-of-all-bubbles%E2%80%99-exploding/ And Hedge Hogs; Gold Man’s Sacks; “financial terrorist attacks;” and the Obama sellout: http://abusalmandeyauddeeneberle.wordpress.com/hedge-hogs-gold-man%E2%80%99s-sacks-%E2%80%9Cfinancial-terrorist-attacks%E2%80%9D-and-the-obama-sellout/ And SUPER COMMITTEE BIG BANK ROBBERY and “this sucker” going down http://abusalmandeyauddeeneberle.wordpress.com/super-committee-big-bank-robbery-and-%E2%80%9Cthis-sucker%E2%80%9D-going-down/ And Super rich 1% vs 99 %; Terrorism Cycle: Guillotines: Occupy “ALL” streets. http://terrorismbreedsterrorism.wordpress.com/super-rich-1-vs-99-terrorism-cycle-guillotines-occupy-all-streets/

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Nice post!

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

Let's not let them divide us into left and right on this. I'll accept anyone;s criticism of capitalism and you can hear my argument against socialism but let's not worry about that right now and go after Fascism/Corporatism/Crony-Capitalism. That we can all agree on I think. I'm a tea party Ron Paul libertarian and I will join OWS, shake hands with the left. We can fight later.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Agreed. I am a liberal converted to a Hayekan...and Ron Paul supporter..

[-] 1 points by leftistperson (95) 2 years ago

Capitalism and "free markets" always lead to big corporations and oligopolies. In the early 19th century, capitalism was composed mainly by small and midsized companies. But in capitalism there is a natural process of concentration of business in few hands. The larger companies purchase the smaller companies, and have more competitive advantages due to "economy of scale". The larger companies become bigger and bigger, and hold a ever crescent market share. The final result are oligopolies (like the Intel / AMD duopoly in the CPU market) and even monopolies.

[-] 4 points by MelanieDawn (9) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

I agree with Duchess that we are currently looking at corporatism, not capitalism. I have been saying that myself for several years. But I agree with you that "free market capitalism" will always lead to big corporations and monopolies, which will also lead us straight back to corporatism. I have to disagree with the Libertarians (I was one for 30 years btw) and the Tea Party that we need to attack government as a means of eliminating corporatism. Quite the opposite in my view. We need government to break up corporate monopolies, but we can only do this by ending corporate "personhood," reversing Citizens United, strengthening our unions, etc.

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

agree. Citizens United is chilling. I do wonder if you ever read Hayek. What I have noticed is quite a distortion of Hayek among Libertarians in the U.S..

[-] 0 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 2 years ago

Can I have an example of some 19th century monopolies that weren't state sponsored?

[-] 0 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

you act like economies of scale is a bad thing - or as if lighter quicker companies can't emerge and start stealing market share. this happens even in our unfair crony capitalism - it's just harder. you seem to be acting like it doesn't happen at all.

most monopolies have been formed by government protection. oligopoly or duopoly (and even monopoly actually) are only bad if they aren't getting the consumer what they want for a good price - natural monopolies (like alcoa) were doing just that though. as long as there isn't collusion then multiple large players are fine. intel/amd are certainly fighting eachother for market share.

[-] 2 points by deGrene (199) 2 years ago

They can't when the heavier, monolithic corporations are the ones controlling the rules by which the game is played. for examples, look to what GM and Ford did to the rail system in this country and what they are still doing for efforts to create mass transit systems. Also look at the propaganda unleashed by the energy providers in stifling research and development of alternative energy systems. Both of these examples are in wide -- and effective -- use in other countries around the world, but not here. Why? Because the power brokers of the status quo have rigged the game.

People often point to the success of the internet as how innovation can and should work. The fact is that, the reason the Internet was successful is because no one saw it coming. In fact, before there was a public Internet, the USPS had their own -- a little known fact -- which they GAVE AWAY, saying that it would never catch on. That communications system grew into this medium that we use now so often and so effectively, but if anyone in power seen what was going to happen -- the people like Rupert Murdoch and other media moguls -- it would have been shut down within weeks under the excuse that "more research is needed."

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

well that was exactly my point - it's not a free market that does that - it's the government that sets up the rules by which the game is played, rules the big incumbents lobby for. it is the government that creates/protects the monopoly then - rarely the market.

i'm not sure which particular examples of rail you are speaking of - local ones in decent size cities? or high speed rail? the latter only appears to be a solution in the northeast corridor where we have much greater population density (a la europe) - i am by chicago and while the romantic idea of high speed rail appeals to me, it does not appear to be an economically sound idea.

the green systems in many of those countries are highly highly subsidized as well. i would rather see no subsidies at all for any technology. i am curious as to what pebble bed nukes could offer and how much we might be able to harness hemp based ethanol.

i don't get your internet comments. it was not successful because "no one saw it coming" and i have no idea what you mean by the USPS 'giving away intarwebs' - which does not seem like accurate history to me, and your comments on murdoch seem silly to me. the fact is the internet was made by the government/military/academics and the wealth it has been able to spawn is a product of private enterprise utilizing it.

[-] 1 points by deGrene (199) 2 years ago

At one time -- the early part of the 20th century, we had a passenger rail system that actually worked quite well. GM and Ford formed a "cooperative" to manage these rail systems. Immediately, they began dismantling the interurban systems and the smaller regional systems -- for one example (and there are others) http://culturechange.org/issue10/taken-for-a-ride.htm.

It is also the auto companies that are throwing roadblocks in the way of the high speed rail system. They're not the only ones, but they are the major forces behind it. Nearly every other developed country in the world has such a system but here, we say it needs more study; can't be done safely, all kinds of idiotic statements like that. In truth, it's merely those monolithic companies that don't want to change that are standing in the way.

My source for the USPS internet comes from a USPS insider who, for obvious reason, doesn't want to be named. He was with the post office when this happened and was involved in it.

We know that the military had an internet-type of system long before the public was aware of it. While, by today's standards, it was primitive, it was created in the late 60s or early 70s. This technology was offered to the post office sometime in the early 80s. They looked at it, played around with it (according to my source) and then gave it away because they said it had no practical purpose. In fact, they saw no way of making money from it because they simply were not imaginative enough.

Responding to your point about the government setting up the rules -- it is not the "government" that matters, but those who control the government. If you look at the history of legislation over the past 30 years (regardless of party) you will find more and more direct involvement of corporations and financial institutions in the creation -- as oppsoed to the support or opposition -- of legislation. Bush's energy policy is a high-profile example: the committee that drafted that legislative policy was made up almost entirely of oil company officials -- not leglisators, not citizens, not academics or indenpendent experts, but people directly and actively working wthint the oil industry. The same was true for pharmaceutical legislation during that adminstration and during the current adminsitration. So to say it is the government that sets up the rules for business is inaccurate. It is big business that sets up the rules for government adn that is the first thing we need to change.

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

i'm aware of the GM/ford thing, but that was in cities. i advocate more of them or, i think better, more and better bus systems.

the auto companies don't need to throw roadblocks for high speed rail. as i noted, it only makes sense in very dense areas. i live by chicago - it doesn't make sense to connect us with anyone for it. you talk about 'nearly every other developed country' as if that even means that an idea is even right. and again, these countries have much different population distributions and transportation needs. i've seen mutliple studies saying the only part of the US where high speed rail makes sense is the northeast corridor.

your USPS thing just sounds completely unfeasible. the us postal service, to this day, has like 5 number tracking systems instead of 1. and now you are claiming there is some kind of magical internet that made that was amazing, and people just didn't want it, or something? i'm not asking for the name of your confidential source - can you link me to an article or anything that even mentions anything remotely having to do with the usps and internet? and why this supposed secretive stuff anyway? why can't you name your insider? what would happen if the world knew the "real" history of the internet, and the postal service? i can't even fathom what bad things would come of this! and what do you mean by "gave it away"? at most it sounds like USPS was offered a rudimentary network connection opportunity be academics/defense and found no use for it so opted not to participate in it in any way. so what?

you do make a point for me though, with saying they saw no way of making money from it because they were not imaginative enough. that is because wealth does not come from government, at most what they can do is put an infrastructure like the internet in place. it has little value until private enterprise creates goods, services and jobs in that environment to create real wealth.

you are arguing semantics on the rules. i hear most people call for more government power. corporations control the government! let's give the government more power, that will show those corporations! as long as the government has the power to make bad rules and special favors, corporations are ALWAYS going to find a way to get them written in their favor. your answer seems to be trying to make it harder for them to buy that favor - i have no problem with that - but my point is they are still going to figure out a way to do it. my solutions is to remove the power to do this. take away the ability to grant special favors, and there's no longer a favor to buy.

[-] 1 points by deGrene (199) 2 years ago

I cannot point you to any particular article and you'll have to decide for yourself whether my claim is valid or invlaid. Perhaps a better example that I could have used was the Moodymobile. This was a car based on the Ford Capri that, in 1979 -1981 (I believe the dates are correct) was certified by the AAA, United States Auto Club (USAC), the US Department of Transportation and several other bodies, as getting an average of 84 miles per gallon. It was created by NASCAR car builder Ralph Moody (of Holman-Moody fame) and a former crew member of his, Mike Shetley.

Moody, who was a car builder in the days of factory sponsorship in stock car racing, said frm the very beginning that he absolutely refused any offer from any car company to buy the rights to the machine because, in his opinion, they would immediately shelf the project and it would never be heard of again. He well remembered how GM had undermined the Tucker and had even hired a national PR firm to spread lies about the car. Moody was determined to release his car to teh public.

However, GM and Ford put a lot of pressure on Shetley and promised him huge monetary gain. Finally, Shetley and Moody fell out over the issue and split. Since they had shared the rights to the design, Moody could not stop Shetley from selling out to GM who bought the designs and the rights. The issue was dead.

For more information I can offer some articles on this:

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20073680,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,916788,00.html

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/al-gore-wasnt-the-only-guy-flogging-an-80-mpg-car

Two years previously, Moody reportedly created a gasoline engine that averaged 63 mpg. I ahve not seen anything on that yet, but you can certiainly research it -- Moody has several bios out there.

But I think getting tied up in that point is misleading: my origianl point was that with the control of the legislative and regulatory system by these monolithic institutions, innovation is stifled.

To say I am getting caught up in semantics is inaccurate. It's not semantical by systematic. The government has ceded its legislative powers to corporations who now control, through campiagn contributions, lobbying, and other means, what legislators do. If you want to say that corporations are, in fact, the government and that, in that respect the argument becomes one of semantics, I would agree with you, but to say that my point about who creates the rules is semantical I think is not true.

I also disagree that the Occupy movement is calling for more government, and for the same reason as above. I know of no one in the Occupy movement who has done anything other than call for a change in who CONTROLS government. The issue with Occupy is that the One Percent control government instead of the 99%. That has nothing at all to do with the role of government, the size of it, its actions or its initiatives. It is merely who is in control and that rests, as I ahve stated before, with the corporations and the One Percent.

[-] 0 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

these stories of supposed magic cars invented long ago but suppressed by markets or governments are ridiculous. your claim is that GM bought the rights to an 80 mpg car then killed it. why the hell would they do this? GM doesn't drill or sell oil. they make cars! you are going to tell me that they have plans for the most desirable car ever, and they are a car manufacturer, and they decided to suppress the designs? and throughout the decades everyone else running the company also decided that? and that after decades, engineers whether academic, professional or garage have not been able to discover this inner core hidden logic? the reality is things like this or GM's ev1, are not economically feasible. i'm a car guy, my brother is an engineer and a car guy, our friend is an engineer, car guy and racer - neither of them believe for one second that there is some super secret knowledge like this out there being suppressed.

yes you are arguing semantics on who writes the laws. it doesn't matter if corporations or government wrote them, it's only the government that has the power to legislate them. you act like if the corporation didn't author part of obamacare and instead whispered sweet things into a politicians ear that the results would come out any differently. my point is that only government can make the rules, and only government can grant special favors, and the only way to stop special favors and unfair competition is by taking away the power of the government to do these things. there is nothing you can do to stop these rules getting in. if you have finance reform and lobby reform you may make getting unfair rules harder to get in, or take longer, but they are still going to get there. as long as the power to make special favors there, there is going to be a willing buyer, and they are going to figure out how to buy it. i'm all for making it harder for them to buy, but if we remove the ability in the first place there would be nothing for them to even try and buy.

OWS is outrage and that is its only asset. the only value i see in it is that it can open the dialogue for people. at first i thought the movement was anti-capitalist, then for rooting out crony capitalism and simply just restoring it, but now i'm back to anti-capitalist. instead of looking at why student loans is a scam (100% federal backing) OWS rightly complains about the problem, but the most common solution i hear is (wongly) taxing the 1% to pay for education. i equivalate that to seeing the housing bubble, and rather than acknowledging it existsm the problems that led to it and popping it so homes would fall to their true prices, they say the 1% should pay for fantasy housing values. i'm not sure how, with so many people saying that, you can say occupy is not about the role of government, size, actions, initiatives, etc.

the people are more to blame than corporations. corporations will always ask for special favors and unfair competition - that's no secret. good government would tell them to f off. but we have a people who have become ignorant and apathetic on foreign policy, economics, politics, etc. they elect crappy representatives, and the representatives enact foolish policies on their own, and grab more power and grant special favors to corporations while the people sit idley by and keep voting for them over and over. the system is working just as designed as a republic and representative democracy. the unfortunate thing is, that style of government doesn't automatically lead to prosperity; you don't get what you want or what you'd like - you get what you deserve.

[-] 1 points by deGrene (199) 2 years ago

You asked for documentation of something and then, when you have it, you deny its existence. I gave you four articles that show that that Ralph Moody did, indeed, create a car that got 87 mpg -- still you call it a fantasy and ridiculous. Are you saying that publications like Time, and Car and Driver are fly-by-night, conspiracy theorist magazines?

As to such a car being financially feasible, I remind you that for many years, the common knowledge was that personal computers would never be economically feasible. Then mobile phones were not practical. After that, mobile internet was a fantasy.

When the automobile first arrived on the scene, it cost more than four good horses and a carriage and lost a race with a team of horses pulling a buckboard. No one in their right mind would pay for one. The airplane was a nice novelty, too, but in no way commercially viable.

As for why GM would want to suppress technology -- for the same reason that the Corvette is limited to very low production numbers: money. GM officials have stated many times that they could double the number of Corvettes produced overnight -- literally. But that would drive the price down, not only on the car itself, but also on the tires and all the repair/replacement parts used in them. When I was a suspension specialist actually working on cars in the 1970s, a Firestone rep told me point blank that they had the technology to make tires that would last 100,000 miles, but "you're never going to see them." That's true. It's called market control.

It's not a matter of them not producing it -- it's a matter of stopping someone else from producing it. Why would you buy a 20 mpg Chevrolet when you could go out and buy an 87 mpg Moody? Moody was intent -- as I said before -- on producing the car himself. That would have been a catastrophe for the car companies. They would have had to completely retool, redesign and rethink their machines. It's much easier to buy someone off than to do that. Can you deny that that happens as a rule in American business?

Your denial of this fact is not supported by history. All of the car companies have a long, long history of buying up their more innovative and more creative competition and doing away with it. You say yourself that they had a hand in destroying mass transit.

Being a "car guy" and/or an engineer and/or a racer does not mean you have knowledge of how to make a car or of the history of automobiles in general or particular. Neither does it mean that, because one is an engineer or a racer, one has the knowledge of automotive engineering to the extent of creating fuel flow dynamics and efficiency. It merely means that your brother works in one of the many diverse areas of engineering and your friend who is a racer works on race cars -- neither of which field necessarily has anything at all to do with fuel mileage or efficiency. In fact, racing is exactly the opposite -- you WANT to use more fuel because you want more power. Remember that an internal combustion engine uses the same principles as a hand grenade: a combustible fuel mixed with appropriate amounts of oxygen ignited by a spark or flame. Dan Garlitts said in the 1970s that any increase in speed on the drag strip would then have to come from aerodynamics because engine technology had reached the point where no further developments would add to horsepower. At the time, the Swamprat was putting out about 2,000 HP. Today, their at 8,000+. My point here is that, just because someone who "knows" cars says something, don't take it for gospel. And, please do not take this personally, but not knowing your brother or your friend, I can give them no more credit as a source than you can give my friend at the post office. I built, worked on and drove race cars for four years. I have a close friend who proudly wears an Indy 500 Championship ring from when he, as a mechanic and a crew member won that race in the 90s. I am well acquainted with people at all levels of auto racing, including former winners of both Indianapolis and Daytona. None of us would have any idea of how to do what Moody did. That isn't our focus, our purpose or our interest automotive arenas. But because we have no idea does not mean that someone just might be smarter and better than us and be able to do it. To say that, because you or your brother have no idea of how such a thing could be done is to say that there is no one more intelligent or knowledgeable than you.

As I said, the car was tested by several well-respected bodies and passed passed the claims made by Moody. if you choose to disbelieve them, I can do nothing to convince you otherwise. As John Lennon said, "Living is easy with eyes closed; Misunderstanding all you see."

(continued below)

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

maybe you should re-read what i wrote, i didn't deny the car existed at all. i said whatever it is, the reason it is not available today is because whatever it is, it's not economically feasible. to believe that this information was bought and suppressed for decades through many different GM managers and by many different engineers and by a car company who would use it to sell cars and make tons of money is just a ridiculous amount of conspiracy. i'm not denying that he got a car to do 80 mpg back then. i am denying that the reason we don't have it today is because of this conspiracy of suppressed information.

limited production of a corvette to produce some artificial scarcity is hardly the same as suppressing a 100% competitive market advantage for decades. i don't by your corvette logic anyway. they will produce as many as they can sell profitably. and the whole reason GM needed a bailout was because of them doing horribly, on average they were LOSING money on every car they sold. the only way they made money was by GMAC making loans. they essentially became a bank, and when you took out a loan with them they gave you a free car. yet you want me to believe they were hiding away some corvettes they could have sold profitably? or the knowledge to get them the best mpg on the market? c'mon dude. i'm sure they had the technology to make tires last 100k miles. they also probably cost a ton of money and perform like garbage. there you go with this fantasy conspiracy of market control again - ah, if not for the evil market we would have magical 100k tires. come on dude. if you are someone who has worked on cars you should have a more realistic view of the world. how hard would a tire have to be to last 100k miles? would that ride good? would it produce low noise? would it do well in the winter? would it give you good traction in the summer? or is your tire and the suppression of all these supposed secrets really a fantasy?

and now you're saying that GM was scared of retooling and redesigning their machines to make the moody car? was it made out of meteorites or something so special that their machinery would not be able to reproduce what he MADE IN HIS GARAGE? what about now 30 years later - you know, wouldn't they have started making his cars if they were feasible? i don't deny that american business, or any business with any brains, if large will buy a smaller better competitor. and then they will SELL THAT PRODUCT. i'm part of a company that just got acquired. and the big guys are doing everything they can to get our product out even more so they can make more money - not suppressing it so they could go to market with their far inferior one. yes GM did play a role in rooting out parity competition in streets cars in cities. that is quite different than buying an amazing innovate design and just throwing it away. for 30 years. gee, is that normally what businesses do when they buy amazing new innovative designs???

i like how you say being cars guys/engineers/racers doesn't mean we have any special knowledge, while the car you are talking about was built by a race car driving garage engineer. why is it that i can take their trained opinions on this, yet you readily accept there are great 100k tires out there - just that they are being suppressed from us? you still haven't offered any good explanation as to why a car manufacturer would suppress what would be the greatest competitive advantage in the history of automobiles. if GM came out with a decent 80 mpg car tomorrow that cost 30k, you don't think that company would explode in profits? that people would be lined around the block to order them? why on earth would they not do this then !?

[-] 1 points by deGrene (199) 2 years ago

Look, I enjouy a good give and take as much as anybody, but, to be honest, this conversation has gotten so far from the original point that we're not even in the same ball park and you're simply trying to argue details about examples rather than dealing with what was the actual meaning within the statement. It's a pretty common thing to get caught up in picking apart details and examples and everyone falls into teh trap, but, honestly, if we're not going to discuss ideas here, I see no value in continuting the conversation. YOu ahve your perspective and I have mine and that's where it is going to stay. To continue this dialogue as we have been doing for the past 24 hours is simply boiling thigns down to playground bickering or barroom debate, and I have no taste for that.

I will answer one point, since you seem to taken it personally. As I explained in my previous post, just because someone is an engineer does not mean they ahve expertise in high mileage cars. You brother, for all I kow, could be an electrical engineer, or a chemical engineer, or a software engineer. Even if he is an automotive engineer, what area of automotive engineering is it? does he work in high mileage technology? If not, then he does not have the expertise to judge something that he has no direct knowledge of. If he looked at the design or saw the machine itself, I could give some weight to his words, but to make a blanket statement that it is "just ridiculous" -- your words, not mine, is, in itself presumptuous and ridiculous. To put it in otehr terms, next year Indycar is going to being using torubochargers on their race engines. Now every team has its team of mechanics and engineers and all these people are experts in their field.But not one of them currently active in the sport has any experience at all with turbocharged engines. These are people who work on these things every day, but here is one bolt-on piece of performance equipment and teams throughout Indycar are rushing to find mechanics, like my friend who has been approached by more than one team, to come in and help the engineers figure out how to set these things up.

My point is that, just because you work on a machine doesn't mean you know everything about it. I was a chassis man. Engines? I could bluff my way through, but I didn't knwo them. My engine man? He knew crap about chassis and set up.

As for your friend who is a racer, I suspect he is a weekend racer such as I was. Are you seriously trying to compare him -- or me, for that matter -- with someone the status of Ralph Moody. That is no different that comparing the guy who plays guitar at your local pub on weekends to Eric Clapton. Please don't insult my intelligence like that.

Now, as I said, I began this discussion with the confidence of it being an exchange of perspectives on an idea. You seem to want to make it into something else and to try to destroy the idea by destroying the examples. Very well -- if that is waht you want to do I can believe only that you are incapable of actually confronting the idea on the basis of it's merits.

At any rate, I am tired of going back and forth concentrating on a single piece of history and your disbelief of it. You will choose to believe what you wish to beleive and you are welcome to do that. BUt I will no longer waste my time discussing this because it's not why I am here and no matter what evidence I bring forth, you will simply choose to disbelieve it. As Neitsche observed, there is no way to argue against someone who begins his argument with "I choose to disbleive everything you say."

Putting it better, as Nietsche did in Beyond Good and Evil, "People will always choose to believe the convenient lie over the inconvenient truth."

Thank you for the comments and the interest in my post. I will no longer respond to your replies however because, quite frankly, there are other conversations here that I feel are more in keeping with my purpose.

Take care.

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

look, my brother and us aside, you are claiming something totally absurd. that GM owns the ability to produce an economically viable 80 mpg car and has suppressed it for decades. that they are sitting on the greatest competitive advantage ever - and ignored it, all the way through bankruptcy. that the engineers that have seen it never could leave the company, improve upon the designs slightly, get a new patent and made zillions. that the changing administration of GM over the decades just sat on this design. that the board and major stockholders through the decades have as well. it's just a ridiculous belief. especially since, as we all know, corporations are there to make money, for themselves and stock holders. yet you believe these guys are sitting on one of the greatest money makers of all time??? simply nothing adds up for this belief at all.

[-] 1 points by deGrene (199) 2 years ago

(Continued)

I clearly stated in my reply to you that ALL administrations since Reagan have increasingly allowed corporations a larger and more invasive role in creating legislation, so your comment about Obamacare implies to me that you are very sensitive toward criticism of conservativism. If that is the case, I think you may continue to be disappointed here.

I think your observation of "it doesn't matter if corporations or government wrote them, it's only the government that has the power to legislate them." is somewhat naive. If the government has ceded its right to create and formulate legislation, then why would they suddenly reverse that course and become an obstruction to its enactment?

You further say that, "my point is that only government can make the rules, and only government can grant special favors, and the only way to stop special favors and unfair competition is by taking away the power of the government to do these things. there is nothing you can do to stop these rules getting in. " This tells me that you feel that public involvement in government is useless and ineffective.

However, two paragraphs later, you say, "the people are more to blame than corporations. corporations will always ask for special favors and unfair competition - that's no secret. good government would tell them to f off. but we have a people who have become ignorant and apathetic on foreign policy, economics, politics, etc" This would imply to me that you think the problem lies in the lack of involvement of the people as pertains to government. Which is it? Is the direct involvement in government by the people effective or ineffective? Again, you have apparently not listened to what people within the movement are saying -- it is all about the government being responsible toward and responsive to the 99% of people who actually produce in this country. If the government does that, then their actions, initiatives, and legislation will change accordingly. The current broken system has come about because the government stopped being responsible toward and responsive to the people and began being so to corporations and those who control them. So, no it is not about what government does, it is about what government is.

I do agree that, ultimately, the people allowed this gap to develop. The stopped demanding that elected officials pay attention to them and they stopped paying attention to what the elected officials were doing. That is why OWS came about -- people actually started doing that again, and when they saw what was going on, they got involved again -- so why are you faulting that? On one hand you say that the people are to blame for not being involved and on the other you seem to be criticisng them because they are -- which way do you want it?

And, if you see that as a problem, what is your solution? I hear you saying that OWS is nothing but outrage and anti-capitalism, but I do not see you putting forth any ideas or policies that would fix the very things you say are wrong.

If I read your reply correctly, you say that OWS and the 99% want to tax the rich to pay for education as a punishment for the housing bubble. That shows me you simply do not understand the principles of the entire movement. The purpose of people here -- and of all those in the OWS movement that I know, is that the rich have benefitted more from this country than anyone else. They therefore should shoulder a greater portion of trhe burden. And to say that that is the only solution OWS has shows you to be ignorant of all the other things people are talking about here -- equitable jobs, equal pay and treatment of employees, the right to organize freely, and many other issues. Detractors of this movement cannot have it both ways: either we have no focus at all, or we are focused on a single solution -- one must choose between them. To do otherwise is to show that they are merely issuing propganda in order to trivialise what is a threat to their way of life.

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 2 years ago

you are reading too much into my obamacare comments - it was just an example. i am fiscally conservative but i do not hypocritically act like reagan didn't do stupid things, and really the history of cronyism and big government making bad policies goes back far longer than that.

i do not understand how you find my comments conflicting. i'm saying ignorant voters act bad representatives. bad representatives take more government power. corporations lobby for those bad representatives to give them unfair advantages. those corporations will ALWAYS find a way to ask for, and try to enrich, the bad representatives for these favors. a good representatives, which the people do not elect enough, will tell the corporation to buzz off. a bad representative, regardless of who authored a bill or favor, will legislate it into law, with them being the sole body that can do so, and the only body accountable to the people. you seem to be saying that you believe there is some way to get the corporations unable to ask for special favors through something at which point they will only be left to deal with the wants of the people. i am simply saying this is impossible, you can never actually stop them from doing this. and even if they don't do it, sometimes congress thinks it's a 'good idea' to do something, which ultimately is a bad idea and merely enriches a few people in a crony system. i would consider the 100% guaranteeing of student loans an example of this. and i am telling you my solution is to not allow the government to grab more power in the first place and be able to wield it to grant special favors. no power beyond what they should have = no special favors to grant = no lobbying for favors.

i'm not criticizing people for being involved in OWS, i actually stated i am glad they are there to open the dialogue. what i did criticize is how shallowly people examine issues and how poorly their suggestions to fix it. the student loan system and the cost of education are screwed up, and the primary reason is because of 100% guaranteed federal loans. the most common OWS "solution" i hear is tax the 1% to pay for school. the actual solution is to stop having the taxpayer guarantee them 100%. i am not saying this is what all people in OWS say, obviously nothing is homogenous in it. i am saying A LOT of people with loans in it are saying that the rich should pay for them, and ignoring the actual problem that screwed the system up in the first place. i don't know what you mean by "equitable jobs and equal pay" but the more people focus on being equal, the less wealth is produced to spread around equally. legislation (or economic systems) that have as their primary goal creating equality only succeed in creating equality in poverty.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

@ gawdoftruth..I am in Santa Barbara as well ;) and lets continue to spread awareness!

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Agreed -- try theMultitude.org for additional debate on this important topic.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by bernethau (1) 2 years ago

If you want to read the exciting future that we have in store for our children and grandchildren under unbridled capitalism, fleshed out in all its horror, read The Joad Cycle, a speculative fiction novel of America as an autocratic capitalist utopia, where the poor are executed if they cannot generate enough wealth or cost too much to be alive.

[-] 0 points by chunking (19) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I agree! This shouldn't be an anti-capitalism movement. That's not going to work. If we can spread this information it will really help this movement. Don't let the other side decide your movement!

[-] 0 points by FUCKTHENWO (280) from RIVERDALE, MD 2 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-end-the-federal-reserve-and-what-do-you-replac/

We have so much technical knowhow yet we as a nation operate so inefficiently. Why? There are so many people out of work. Why? We have so much to accomplish. We are in 14.8 trillion dollars of debt. This is the government’s job to figure out. Our current government is inefficient and ineffective. They continue to indebt our country via the Federal Reserve Board. We will not give up until the Federal Reserve Board is fired by the United States government. We will not give up until a constitutional amendment takes the money out of politics.

This isn't an attack on the rich. There is nothing wrong with being rich. There is a problem with being rich and stealing from the poor. There is a problem with few people controlling the wealth, and to that end there is a problem when those who control the wealth are not helping their country and society progress.

How do the rich steal from the poor, you might ask?

Think about it like this: wealthy individuals put extra money in the banking system in order to earn more money without doing anything productive. On the other hand, poor individuals borrow money from the bank which they then pay interest on, in order to grow the money of rich people. Much of the middle and lower class inevitably become enslaved to their debt. Is that the free market? An endless cycle of debt? An economy which utilizes wars and exploitation to sustain itself. Fuck naw. That aint right. That aint American.

Whether you'd like to believe it or not, we are all slaves to the mass debt that America has accrued over the years. What will we do? How can we break free?

End the Federal Reserve. It's unconstitutional and damn-fucking immoral.

Some say real free-market economics is the best system, although we've never really seen what it looks like. The current fractional reserve banking system is not the free market. In my opinion the most innovative, necessary, and implementable solution is a resource based economy, when you take the 14.8 trillion dollars of debt into consideration.

Project Earth: A Resource Based Economy Explained http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDhSgCsD_x8

If you love capitalism, but hate the Federal Reserve, ask yourself this: if the current market is a failure, how can you erase the world's debt? We in the US owe the world everything. Not only are we indebted to the world literally, but we, the leaders of the free world, have been leading the destruction of the environment for how long? Do we not owe it to the world to fix it? We have much of the world's resources. We have one of the greatest education system in the world. What are we doing wrong?!?! Why do we not take it upon ourselves to construct a sustainable global economy that is based on the natural resources of the planet and use this economy the repay our debt to the world. I know people love to fantasize about the wealthy and powerful America, but listen, we're indebted to the world! Time to grow a pair and pay the world back. And I know, a resource based economy is “Communist” and “Utopian;” STOP ASSIGNING MEAINGLESS WORDS TO IDEAS. The system is a resource based economy, and it is neither communist nor utopian. It is a progressive economy that is backed by tangible items and utilizes the scientific method to achieve optimal efficiency.

And why should the American people care? Because the United States of America is in 14.8 trillion dollars of debt. The financial system is set to crash, leaving the American people to suffer through years of economic depression. There is nothing Ben Bernanke can do about it, there is nothing Tim Geithner can do about it. The people of the United States did not accrue this massive debt. Our irresponsible, ineffective, and inefficient government hired the Federal Reserve Board so that they could print all of the money in the world. This, my friends is unconstitutional. They printed money to go to war, they printed money to bailout those who were too big to fail.

NO MORE! NO MORE WILL WE FOLLOW SUCH IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP.

END THE FED.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFz1VVXsWRU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe0fGXzKb1o&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lac9O7dHHfo&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k http://www.scribd.com/doc/6400129/End-the-Fed-Nationwide-Rally-Newsletter http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/24/the-federal-reserve-vs-the-constitution/ http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/naij2.html http://drrobertowens.com/2011/09/30/is-the-federal-reserve-constitutional/ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531 http://www.healthfreedom.info/Federal_Reserve_Fraud.htm

[-] 0 points by han (18) 2 years ago

"What is failing the people today.......is NOT Capitalism. We do NOT have free markets with sound money. We have Corporatism....the merger between Big Corp/Banks and Govt backed by fiat money."

Agreed. What we have is Crony capitalism.

Crony Capitalism definition: Crony capitalism is a term describing a capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.

Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world; self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Nazism is a fascist ideology but Fascism is not necessarily Nazism. They are not mutually exclusive

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

@ MuadDib...Capitalism requires sound money to keep it in check. It is THE regulation to keep it in check. It is not capitalism that is failing today....its human greed that is and a system (Federal Reserve System) that compliments greed.

[+] -14 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Read about Keynes, and even Hayek, from a reputable and interesting source, instead of a Ron Lawl campaign volunteer (notice "she" doesn't deny it). http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/10/111010fa_fact_cassidy?currentPage=all

Oh, and, Winning!

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Locke

(510) 238-3141 Call Oakland Mayor Jean Quan and express your thoughts

510-777-3333 Call Oakland Chief of Police Howard Jordan and express your thoughts.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

and I read................the works directly from Hayek...not some opinion article....See, if only more would actually pick up a book. I could pick apart the American libertarian movement just as much because they don't actually read....the authentic works!

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Keynes.......agreed with Hayek.....on many fronts...