Note by Me: I don't agree with the Jewish baiting, but most of the words are accurate.
By Timothy
From http://christianinfobomb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20532
"They've even added a new twist by incorporating the "free market" bull into "free-enterprise capitalism." Probably because Ron Paul style anti-all-government-regulation libertarianism has become (mistakenly) popular. So the line is that now it's all the same thing - capitalism, free markets, free enterprise - six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Nonsense.
Capitalism wants "free markets" (not fair markets) for one purpose. To grab more and bigger shares of any business anywhere thanks to the criminally false financing of private bankers of issue, always the key to such rampaging greed.
There is only one kind of capitalism, the greed-driven kind. That is the only purpose of concentrating capital into the hands of these few, so they can use it as an economic weapon against all those less rapacious in their makeup.
That concentration is the underlying purpose of stock markets, the first of which was opened in Amsterdam shortly after the Inquisition in Spain caused many Marrano Jews to opt for migration to Holland. The ultimate result of unregulated capitalism, after dog eats dog eats dog after dog, is a single gigantic corporation, owning all, controlling all, dictating all, as in the UN objective.
And with a multitude of corpses scattered throughout the world as unconcerned "collateral." "
I've said that too, what is the succes of Capitalism? Thhere is the answer.
Pro Capitalists wills ay competition, lower prices and more service. Well, privatization is not doing that at all today. Why? Because Capitalism is been too succesfull that you got mega corporates and cartels inevitably.
As succesfull Capitalist grow big, they will start to create cartels and buy themselves into government. Those who support that system want limited goverment, privitazation. But they have no problem with privatized goverment, corporate militairy police ( fascism) very often.
so those who want the Capitalist model to work, but not that it completely goes down will demand regulation, limitation of speculation ( whre i've been talking about very often) but that is not liked by the free market types, those want no regulation or any dirigist policy,c ause they see ANY regulation or limitation ofthe corproate world ( even if THEY run goverment!!) as Communism or Socialism, which is nonsense.
Unlimited/ unregulated free market/ Capitalism will die out because of their onw syucces and become in the end exactely as the supposed enemy is ( Communism).
Because of the succes ofcompetition,t he most manipulative greedy corprotes and ruthless entrepeneurs will move gradually to t e top and start to dominate.
When that happens the competition, better service and quality is already far gone ( liek today ) all countries where state compaies run railways systems, power grids, highways etc, are showing more quality, lower costs then the private sector sodl national infrastructure.
That's why France and Germany have such a good infrastructures.That's why countries that have ahigher percentage of goverment run healthcare score way better than those with the highest privatly owned health care systems.
Yeah, big government can be bad, but so big corporates and even worse is big corporates/ cartels/ oligarchs RUNNING goverment, which is what you see today in many countries.These rpivate companies cannot be held accountable, but if it's pure goverment, you at least can conquer goverment back as citizens by participating more into it, and kick imcompetent leaders or corrupt leaders out of office.
sot he discussion si rather not how small government should be, but how mchc controlled by the people. ( right now this is impossible anymore, as it's too far gone in many countries due to tholigarchs running the show)
The end of the knocking out of the last competitors ( succes of Capitalism, where a few win this Capitalist game) is then Corporate ownership of everything which is basically the same result as Communism. Instead of a State owned nation, a corporate/ oligarchical owned nation, both lead to fascism and tyranny.
In that sense the old West-European model of a mixed dirigist economy between Capitalism and socialism worked much better, but free market proponets killed this system largely, so the same disease the US and UK were suffering under, are exported to here now. I think Roosevelt and to some degree J.F.K where the American examples of better policy economically, in Europe De Gaulle of France. ( aside what they eventually did for the rest, but economically speaking!)
Capitalism will work great only in the beginning when there still is competition, when companies are small and middle class dominated.The samem family companies etc, but sooner or later eve some families, usually the most corrupt andbold ones ( aside fo real succes stories based on natural succes) will move up the ladder, it's just the way it is.
Capitalism ( unregulated free marketism) is basically the darwinist model of the survival of the fittest in economics. It has no soul, it doesn't care.
Aslong you have private bankers running Central Banks, you certainly cannot have any succesfull unregulated Capitalism, if you would prefer it.
But once again, in the longer run it won't work.
The succes of Capitalism is also the end of it!!
In Communism that's the opposite. If Communism is allowed to take over the Globe, all competition is gone, so no matter how inefficient it is, it will always survive aslong it's Globally! globalist know!They get there via this unregulated free market / Capitalistic model and the succes of the corporate octopus is then installing bureaucratic government boards via NGO's and Foundations/ global Governance and there's your global Communism with prifullprivate backing without any competition.( almost nobody understands this last piece i tried to explain, they keep you forever in this Capitalist verses socialist/ Communist debate, which is another false dialectic)
It's really hard to boil this down, but i should give it a try as far my knowledge and insight goes....
This is corporatism in progress, that leads to corporate installed bureaucrats controlling and micromanaging society. ( which is blamed by pro free market/ Capitalist people as Big Government/ nanny state/ Communism/ Socialism) but the real cause if the succes of Capitalism,the cartels/ oligarchs and monopolies that grew out of this succes.( the winners of competition) Ofcourse you never can have an equilibrium of constant healthy competition that is in balance what freemarket/ Capitalist proponents stand for, because somebody will always manage to grow bigger and seize others. When that happens it's already the begining of the just described process.
Capitalism might only work for several decades until you get all these phenomenon just talked about. ( even if you start from scratch!)
That was it basically, i'll continue with more thoughts of me...
For that same reason anarchism whether in politics or economics cannot work wel, it might seem like the ultimate freedom/ liberty, but it's ot as what i described above is the end result of it after a while.Because sooner or later, those with the most succes will apply/ abuse type of anarchism / deregulation, having no restrictions and so become a curse instead of a blessing for society.
In Economics this unrestricted model ( which obviously failed and we're stuck with it now) is known as Anarcho-Capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anarchy-symbol.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard
"Murray Newton Rothbard (March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995) was an American intellectual, individualist anarchist,[1] author, and economist of the Austrian School who helped define modern libertarianism and popularized a form of free-market anarchism he termed "anarcho-capitalism".[2][3] Rothbard wrote over twenty books and is considered by some to be "dean of the Austrian School of economics, the founder of libertarianism, and an exemplar of the Old Right".[4]
Building on the Austrian School's concept of spontaneous order, support for a free market in money production and condemnation of central planning,[5] Rothbard advocated minimum coercive government control of the economy. He considered the monopoly force of government the greatest danger to liberty and the long-term well-being of the populace, labeling the State as nothing but a "gang of thieves writ large"—the locus of the most immoral, grasping and unscrupulous individuals in any society.[6][7][8][9]
Rothbard concluded that virtually all services provided by monopoly governments could be provided more efficiently by the private sector. "
The reality is the only thing WORSE than the monopoly force of government is the corproarte/ oligarchical monopoly force on top of government, where authorities are just bureaucratic boards for Corporatis. and then you get soiciopaths on top of goverment like this leader of Godman Sachs, that think he's doing the worlk of God etc.
Once these pwoers seized control of goverment,it's way mroe difficult to get rid of them then when you would have a pure govevernment system that the population can conquer back and fight back of corrupt bureaucrats!!
The libertarianism today that you see is very often rather an elitist form of libertarianism, where employees/ corporate leaders want limited government, with the excuse for the taxpayer, but the reality is they want no regulation, unlimited influence and speculation and corruption/ conflict of interest. but most followers of libertarianism want a human system of limited government and a well functioning freemarket/ Capitalist model where the people are in control. I tried to explain above why this is not working in the end, only for a short period fo time at best if you start from scratch.
Murray Newton Rothbard model of succes with give the opposite what most followers of libertarianism ( Ron/ Rand Paul supporters and other exmples etc.) want.
In the US you have local propaganda ( which worked also very good duringthe Cold War verses the Communists) to make it looklike this system is anAmerican system/ model:
‘Capitalism’ Not So Sacred to Americans as Mood Sours (Update1)
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid ... 1mV1f.fwfI
"July 13 (Bloomberg) -- Capitalism, the bedrock of the U.S. economic system, isn’t a favorite term these days among American citizens, opinion surveys show. ""
Rewind >>>"Capitalism, the bedrock of the U.S. economic system">>>> wrong....British financier model or also known as the Anglo-Dutch free market/ East Compagny / Venetian model of oligarchs and monarchs.That i what America has for almost 100 years now, especially since 1913, that is what the Fed is and who owns it.
These two things get confused very often!!American Capitalism, where the family companies thrived existed and was the most succesfull economci period of modern human history in economics., but that died off gradually sine 1913.There's been a period before 1913 where you really saw comeptition and increased gains of purchasing power and enormous machine tool and manufacturing increases in the US, where the US was the envy of the world, because there were growth rates comparable with that of China today, only with lowr inflation than in China, so better.It was much better and sound than what you see in China today.( which isi fragile and partly built upon the same fundaments as this corporate model you see today)
China is been chosen by internationalist financiers and Western offshoring and outsourcing ( not based upon competition in the beginning) is been the succes story of China, before that these internationalist choosed China as model and new country to rise up, the country was actually doign very bd and shrinking enormously economically until the end of the 1970s. The Chinese are no the ones who worked themselves up, they did take the opportunity once all this money came in a nd Western special interest began to rise China up.( not based upon competition or any succes story, but because they mae it happen)
Many proponents of Capitalism and free market today actually still see the US as it is today as this old pre-1913 model.so they praise the British post 1913 system as being American.
I think this is the best as far as i can do as far my explanation goes. ( leaving the story understandable without too many off track details)
And so the "Chinese" succes of today is just likethe US from 1913 on the very model of an elitist London based oligarchical system.
but those financiers and the realted hedge funds etc, are not necessarily British based anymore, they are borderless opportunists basically, the internationalists / globalists. HongKong, Singapore and Dubai are other offshore hot money colonies of this borderless empire that is often called the British empire. Israel is actually also a kind of safe haven and part of this system in their own right and this British Israelism / Zionism model is then an ideology that you see politically and religiously next to this economic/ financial model.
About all founders of the libertarian movement and usually overlapping the Austrian School of economics are Zionist Jews and Zionist Non-Jews.
so that is how it works, as the Teutonic European model was into this idea that their nations and their royality is tracing back to ancient Israel and king David ( our monarchs still believe this they've obsessed with geneology!!), the supposed 10 lost tribes of Israel, after this Zionism was rising up.The very same "Jewish" ( Askenazi) financiers behind this model are also behind Communism and operated out of the UK mainly, via the British Empire, much like the US/ Wallstreet is now seen as the empire, but is taken over by the very same system. we often call "British" today, but as you see it's basically borderles elitist that once also operated out of Fankfurt am Maine in Germany, and the Schiff and Rotschild family etc.The Warburgs, Morgans and others joined, some oportunistic families like the Bushes later joined to pick a few grains with the rise of it.
This model all was reviving or becoming way more dominant since PM Thatcher rising up in the UK, which supporting this elitist libertarisn model of the Austrian School of Von Hayek. President Ronald Reagan adopted this system too in a way ot lookliked it was a homegrow american new direction ( so called Reagonomics) but that's for local public consumption as all nationalities like to hear that their nation have a new invention, a great ideo or model.
Lower taxation rates ( actually good) was one thing, except that the lower taxation went tot eh rich only and you saw the widest gap appearing between rich and poor under the Reagan period. Thatcher with the union busting model.See, the unions had to be busted cause they protected the employees, but Thatcher wanted this elitist EMPLOYER/ corporate type of libertarianism, that is, employers/ corporates are unnlimited to do whatever they want/ trade and or even exploit employers and cut wagest, not the people!!Longer working for less money no benifits. cut off facilities, a bit lower taxation ratie, but not in comparisson to alla usterity and cuts of facilities.
The only idea was that emplyers are seena sexpenses, not to invest in, but to cut their wages and benefits or entitlements as fast as possible to compete better. Because privatization and deregulation offshored British industry, Thatcher was not really into elevating the British production. so the financial system was growing with all forms of speculative derivatives and papermonies while the UK was impoding industrially. So none of the cuts of wages or austerity actually lead to a better competitiviness for the UK, only to negative side effects.The hot money of derrivatives have covered this loos of real economy for the last period until 2007 or so...with rising housing prices, equities, more peope working per familiy and longer hours so it seemed the British icnreased wealth enormously. The reality is that per worked our per employee the purchasing power of the average Britton is dropped enormously, same is true for the average american and most westeners. So employers are rather seen as expenses you need to minimize as much as possible to compete, while at the same time the deregulation destroyed that very same manufacturing/ production you thought to win ( and more!)
This supposed libertarian model didn't bring any good for the locals, orit seemed so for a period of time, due to the examples i mentioned that covered up what was really taking place.The reality is that the economy is dominated by mega corporations and that the middleclass is not doing too well. The middle class is not completely equal to the definition that's ben used in the UK.( i use the American definition of the average joe that can actually start up business and compete and make some bucks without too many restrictions)
The British definition of "middleclass" is a rather elitist one of private schools a higher class that has privileges, not the average joe or entrpeneur necessarily.
Thatcher and Reagan revived this model and derivatives we allowed, banned by F.D.R before, and this combined with the fiat system and the road down with this new Petro Dollar system since 1971 where the 30% gold backing was removed from the Dollar increased monetary inflation and also speculation. Since 1982 we've seen more exotic paper mony derivatives and products and i already told above how the loss of real economy or loos of purchaisng power per worker hour per employee was covered up.The floatingcurrencies, not longer peged to the $US was not good, speculation with currencies brought instability, any Central Banker that says that they worked on more stability in the system is just plain crazy or a conspirator.Speculation in currencies or with paper money with no real physical representation of value is ofcourse not leading to more stability!!The $US was a good stable factor compared to most global currencies because of th 30% gold rati0 and so it was convenient for others to pg to the Dollar and it worked pretty good.
The rest is history after many crises, national crisis, in the end of the 1980s and 1990s in many third world countries victim of this system, it eventually lead to waht we're into today!!now many first World countries are targetted by this same model that attacked third world countries, austerity, cuts of wages, massive privatization of everything still in hands of the taxpayer to the corporatist led bureaucrats of the IMF.
Article that also shows why a higher retirement age is not working, basically an explanation why austerity
is not working and it and it also talks about several issues i dealt with above with another perspective to it:
It’s the End of the World As We Know It
http://www.philstockworld.com/2010/07/17/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/
This article above is the best explanation i've seen in a long time aside of Webster Tarpley.
Also related:
America is 234 Years Old Today - Is It Finished?
http://www.philstockworld.com/2010/07/0 ... -finished/
Yup, the old system, the idea America was based on is gone.
As the US has no long history and her peopel are a gathering of all kinds of nationalities and races and religions that made up a nation based upon an ideology that at her core has the Constitution and Bill of rights, but when that system is phased out, the very idea of America is gone and so the nation. And so it's like any nation basically, except she is an amalgamation of nationalities and cultures, there's no real common culture or heritage left. The soluton is the restoration of the Republic and find common direction, and end the Coca Cola Couch potato"tv culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedentary_lifestyle
This is a system that hunts many Globally, but Americans have the world record watching tv, 8 hours a day!! Dutch start too look less and less around 2 hours now, many are bored, many are behind the computer, playing soccer outside, sports or going to pubs or other activities indoors. You can see that younger Dutch are better informed than older dutch who have the typical Couch potato"tv culture as in post war Netherlands it was special to have a tv, and many people began tow atch when tv broadcasts began until it ended, back then in 11.PM or so in the 1950s. These odler generations of Dutch watch way more tv than younger Dutch who are incredibly borded with tv, but that is not happening in the US, while Dutch tv is way more diverse and interesting than American tv on average.Even if people just would be doing sports for an hour every day, that would just be way more positive for everybody! The only bad side of younger dutch generations is that they're drinking liek crazy. It was on teh radio, according toa study the average dutch male drinks 17 glasses of alcoholics a day, every day and usually that continues for amonth beign in Spain or any locations. The Dutch females do it less bad with "just"7 alcohoic beverages per day during every day of their vacation or holiday period. Coma drinking starts to get a serious problem, people that get demended before they're 20 of age, that is a dutch problem we need to focus on, but there's also no parents to keep things in check, anythiong goes in Holland. Parents just say:'oh so what, they're young, let them enjoy now they can".
This problem of Dutch youth, although better informed on average than the average Americans, is also part of this wider negative side of Western culture.and so all nationalities have their own particular problems, but many do share many of the same ones, the British have a serious drinking problem too.The Polish workers are often not fucntionign those who enter the Netherlands to work, cause they're drunk as...fill in the blancs.Well, that's also destructive to society. Don't get me wrong, i do appreciate a nice cold one or a wine, but i'm don't participate in coma drinking or drink until i fall to the ground, i have my limit and that's 3 alcoholic beverages at special occasions, rather 2. A day like today with 30C ( 86F) is very nice for a cold one, tastes good.
When i was young and the dutch equivalent of High School i did do more crazy things, but never made it really too bad. Back then it was not unusual to drink alcoholics when walking around,w e didn't have these bown bags you see in the US, no age restrictions wahtsoeve,r all that is of the last years.but it seems how more age restrictions, how more young Dutchies start to drink. Coma drinking at the age of 11 years is not uncommon anymore.
Kids in Europe drinking heavy at early age
Some as young as 13 end up in hospital after 'coma drinking'
http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-04-27/n ... ore-drinks
So if all this can become more moderate, which is also dependend on how parents raise their children, then society stays more in harmony, a more self-aware society, and a more aware of anything that goes on society is what we all need in the Western world and beyond that as well ofcourse!!
"Dutch start too look less and less"
I mean "watch" ofcourse, my brains are melting, too hot here!!
I noticed a more and more positive trend in Germany where people start hiking, moving, eating more healthy. ( in general)
Germans used to be the fattest Europeans, but a lot seems to eb changing there. Well, it's difficult to say "no", because when i was portions of food and i gained weight in just one week!! LOL
If you see these taste juicy hamburgers and nice sandwiches etc, it's hard to resist!!( you only get 3 times as much as at home in quantity)
And because i really liked it, i tried to drink a litre of cofee in NYC, i don't know any place where i can do that here, so i just tried how much i could handle it. I could!!I could take on more than i thought.... I also conquered that litre of Coke and water in the reastaurant and a litlre of beer. So put me a year in the States or Germany and i'm likely 500 pounds or so!! hehe!! I alos conquer these enormous steaks. But i didn't succes in eating "the biggest hamburger of the World".
Little off track, but maybe a nice way to end this topic with!! :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment