I agree. Government treasuries, under someone's control and dictates (in America's case, the Federal Reserve) mint and distribute money only to certain select people in order to start the circulation going. So that right there is where it's already arbitrary socialism to begin with.
But nobody likes to think about this -- it's too scary. But who gets handed the money first makes all the difference, because if they run an organization, they then get to hand off what they like.
Only about 3% of the total money in existence in a society is in coins and notes. The remaining 97% only exists in ledgers and databases it is what is called 'Abstract money'. It is banks that create this money out of nowhere literally with a few strokes of a keyboard. Banks don't lend out their customers' money nor do they lend out their own money. They create money through loans and lend that out. All money except that 3% in coins & notes comes into circulation as debt!
You might be interested in a long essay by Murray Rothbard called "The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar". It's online somewhere. Also, try doing a search on "local currencies" and a unit of local money currently in existence here in the US -- in the Berkshires (Western Massachussets/Norman Rockwell country) called "Berkshares".
We never won the Cold War, we lost, therefore what we have now isn't capitalism. Russia and China knew that if they faked the fall of their empires, and opened their doors to the free market, that greedy capitalists would find it irresistable to accept the cheap labour in China and Russia. The end result is America has now lost it's industrial capacity and has a huge trade deficit. Russia and China are just waiting for our economy to further fall, then comes invasion, communism, checkmate.
Well, I'm not sure that pure communism OR capitalism is ever truly possible. I think that what we've always really had, is a kind of ethno-nepotism, where monetary circulation is largely confined to certain ethnicities, and so whichever ethnicity establishes and maintains ownership over the money-minting organizations themselves -- such as the Fed -- will automatically be the wealthy ethnicity of a region.
I've become convinced that everything is just race war, be it covert or open.
You're right, the standard concept of capitalism is simply economic activity, no matter how is occurs. If someone is affected negatively, for any reason whatsoever, for the sake of someone else's financial gain, it's called capitalism. If positive, it is ignored.
The "progressives" want liberation from "capitalism." They want to bring into reality this vague notion of goods and services magically appearing and occuring without having costly ramifications just because money isn't used.
Exactly. Both sides are nuts. Both sides have no sane foundation in the notion that there has to be some kind of medium which is meant to stand for quality and value.
By "both sides" you mean the "corporatists" and the "progressives"?
If you do, you're right. Companies like Halliburton and Google. They're just the most conspicuous examples, but most major corporations wouldn't bat an eye at using the government to harm a competitor or pad the bottom line.
They've been subjected to heavy taxation and regulation for so long that corporate America just think it's just another tool in the box. No different than lower prices or better quality.
You have a point; it's all a madhouse, and only the Rothschilds sleep well at night, though they'd probably insist they exist under the Sword of Damocles, too.
I mean, look at what passes for advertising nowadays. Sure, they still push hamburgers and cell phones, but when a company is trying to sell itself as "an organization you can respect", they first thing they point to is how much they care about the environment or how much they gave to charity. How much of a responsible "corporate citizen" it is. Anything except a productive, admirable source of wealth and profit.
Well, part of that is the fault of the undercurrent of childish human envy in the world, which resents anybody truly breaking away from the pack to achieve a real state of pride.
On the other hand, many of these corporations would not be have ever been successful without direct or indirect funding from the Fed-controlled treasury which has engineered the entire nation's dependency upon it.
So, if these companies are being favored with heavy funding that the average person can't get...
...then, on some level, I'd say that "the people" have to play somewhat dirty and at least punish the system that holds us all hostage, as well as its primary beneficiaries, the Fed-subsidized corporations.
I think reality will do all of the punishing that's necessary. The current situation is untenable and will collapse if continued. The most obvious symptom is that everyone, directly or indirectly, is using the likes of China and Saudi Arabia as their bankers. As business partners, and not murdering bastards who don't really have our best interest at heart.
Sure, internet searches, mortgages, and porn have value per se, but not enough to prop up an industrial civilization 300 million strong
Wow... very powerful perspective. We've essentially become an illusion-based economy, while those around us are dealing in hard realities and thriving because of it.
I'm not sure I understand the objection. The "government" doesn't print money and no congressional committee knows of, or can supervise its operation. The Federal Reserve is responsable for the printing and then distributes it to the central bank. It is this bank that is the power house for the government. We need to switch to private banks, the government would never see the money. This is not just Ayn Rands idea, Ludvig von Mises and Murry N. Rothbard wrote extensively on this subject
It very well might, but again were talking about a free market and gold standard capitalism. In a free market no one prints dollars, because there are no dollars, there are only commodities, wheat, auto mobiles, gold, etc. On a free market the monetary unit emerges as the unit of weight of the money commodity. Money can only be obtained by one exchanging his goods or services. Even the gold miners can only get so much. How will they mine? With what tools or employees? He has to pay...
I'm not really sure if this is relevant, but in some Heinlein books I have read (I think the one I have in mind is called 'For Us the Living') his character somehow ends up waking into a futurue where the government pays every citizen a certain stipend on a regular basis. Nobody is required to work, though many people choose to. People doing public jobs, like working transportation, are paid salaries, or in the case of artists they may choose to sell their work.
You should probably just connect the dots for us here -- it's 2011, we're all thoroughly Bilderbergered, our brains are tired.
TheLogicJunkie 2 months ago
I agree. Government treasuries, under someone's control and dictates (in America's case, the Federal Reserve) mint and distribute money only to certain select people in order to start the circulation going. So that right there is where it's already arbitrary socialism to begin with.
But nobody likes to think about this -- it's too scary. But who gets handed the money first makes all the difference, because if they run an organization, they then get to hand off what they like.
TheLogicJunkie 2 months ago
Comment removed
seaslipper1 4 months ago
Crony capitalism... neponomics.
TheLogicJunkie 4 months ago
Only about 3% of the total money in existence in a society is in coins and notes. The remaining 97% only exists in ledgers and databases it is what is called 'Abstract money'. It is banks that create this money out of nowhere literally with a few strokes of a keyboard. Banks don't lend out their customers' money nor do they lend out their own money. They create money through loans and lend that out. All money except that 3% in coins & notes comes into circulation as debt!
MissLadyboy007 7 months ago
@MissLadyboy007 Yeah, it's pretty ghastly.
You might be interested in a long essay by Murray Rothbard called "The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar". It's online somewhere. Also, try doing a search on "local currencies" and a unit of local money currently in existence here in the US -- in the Berkshires (Western Massachussets/Norman Rockwell country) called "Berkshares".
TheLogicJunkie 7 months ago
Capitalism and Corporatism are not the same thing. To learn more, read my website
libertyeverafter [dot] com
nikolayzou 8 months ago
We never won the Cold War, we lost, therefore what we have now isn't capitalism. Russia and China knew that if they faked the fall of their empires, and opened their doors to the free market, that greedy capitalists would find it irresistable to accept the cheap labour in China and Russia. The end result is America has now lost it's industrial capacity and has a huge trade deficit. Russia and China are just waiting for our economy to further fall, then comes invasion, communism, checkmate.
MegaAvalonn 1 year ago
Well, I'm not sure that pure communism OR capitalism is ever truly possible. I think that what we've always really had, is a kind of ethno-nepotism, where monetary circulation is largely confined to certain ethnicities, and so whichever ethnicity establishes and maintains ownership over the money-minting organizations themselves -- such as the Fed -- will automatically be the wealthy ethnicity of a region.
I've become convinced that everything is just race war, be it covert or open.
TheLogicJunkie 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
DonJack1776 2 years ago
Capitalism is NEVER independent of the state. period. Capitalism exists. Why is there even a debate about this?
You don't even know what "corporatism" is. I'm sick of people bastardizing the term. It's not state-sponsored capitalism.
The elites of the early 20th century had Herbert Spencer, the elites of today have Ayn Rand.
DonJack1776 2 years ago
Thank You. Well spoken. Printing money devalues it.
daraj1954 2 years ago
You're right, the standard concept of capitalism is simply economic activity, no matter how is occurs. If someone is affected negatively, for any reason whatsoever, for the sake of someone else's financial gain, it's called capitalism. If positive, it is ignored.
The "progressives" want liberation from "capitalism." They want to bring into reality this vague notion of goods and services magically appearing and occuring without having costly ramifications just because money isn't used.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
Exactly. Both sides are nuts. Both sides have no sane foundation in the notion that there has to be some kind of medium which is meant to stand for quality and value.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
By "both sides" you mean the "corporatists" and the "progressives"?
If you do, you're right. Companies like Halliburton and Google. They're just the most conspicuous examples, but most major corporations wouldn't bat an eye at using the government to harm a competitor or pad the bottom line.
They've been subjected to heavy taxation and regulation for so long that corporate America just think it's just another tool in the box. No different than lower prices or better quality.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
You have a point; it's all a madhouse, and only the Rothschilds sleep well at night, though they'd probably insist they exist under the Sword of Damocles, too.
*shrugs*
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
I mean, look at what passes for advertising nowadays. Sure, they still push hamburgers and cell phones, but when a company is trying to sell itself as "an organization you can respect", they first thing they point to is how much they care about the environment or how much they gave to charity. How much of a responsible "corporate citizen" it is. Anything except a productive, admirable source of wealth and profit.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
Well, part of that is the fault of the undercurrent of childish human envy in the world, which resents anybody truly breaking away from the pack to achieve a real state of pride.
On the other hand, many of these corporations would not be have ever been successful without direct or indirect funding from the Fed-controlled treasury which has engineered the entire nation's dependency upon it.
So, if these companies are being favored with heavy funding that the average person can't get...
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
...then, on some level, I'd say that "the people" have to play somewhat dirty and at least punish the system that holds us all hostage, as well as its primary beneficiaries, the Fed-subsidized corporations.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
I think reality will do all of the punishing that's necessary. The current situation is untenable and will collapse if continued. The most obvious symptom is that everyone, directly or indirectly, is using the likes of China and Saudi Arabia as their bankers. As business partners, and not murdering bastards who don't really have our best interest at heart.
Sure, internet searches, mortgages, and porn have value per se, but not enough to prop up an industrial civilization 300 million strong
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
Wow... very powerful perspective. We've essentially become an illusion-based economy, while those around us are dealing in hard realities and thriving because of it.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
The only obstacle to the laissez-faire capitalism is irrationalism and Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Signofthedollar 3 years ago
*LOL*
Well, that... and the minor fact that the government itself actually mints the very money of capitalism.
So, how do you really have a "separation of business and government" when the very circulation of all money starts in government hands?
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
I'm not sure I understand the objection. The "government" doesn't print money and no congressional committee knows of, or can supervise its operation. The Federal Reserve is responsable for the printing and then distributes it to the central bank. It is this bank that is the power house for the government. We need to switch to private banks, the government would never see the money. This is not just Ayn Rands idea, Ludvig von Mises and Murry N. Rothbard wrote extensively on this subject
TheAtheistChrist 3 years ago
So are you telling me that the Fed actually has its own minting presses? That it doesn't use the government minting facilities at all?
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
It very well might, but again were talking about a free market and gold standard capitalism. In a free market no one prints dollars, because there are no dollars, there are only commodities, wheat, auto mobiles, gold, etc. On a free market the monetary unit emerges as the unit of weight of the money commodity. Money can only be obtained by one exchanging his goods or services. Even the gold miners can only get so much. How will they mine? With what tools or employees? He has to pay...
TheAtheistChrist 3 years ago
I'm not really sure if this is relevant, but in some Heinlein books I have read (I think the one I have in mind is called 'For Us the Living') his character somehow ends up waking into a futurue where the government pays every citizen a certain stipend on a regular basis. Nobody is required to work, though many people choose to. People doing public jobs, like working transportation, are paid salaries, or in the case of artists they may choose to sell their work.
Saedin 3 years ago
I mean, would that work? Certainly it removes the fear from the equation, but does it work?
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago