It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Problem of the Establishment

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:28 PM
I haven't been about much later but I did stop in earilier today and commented on one thread (one that was promoting misinformation) and almost commented on another about a candidates 'establishment' ties. Looking to comment on both these threads and their intersection lead me to this very informative, factual and concise article by Thom Hartmann on the origins of the establishment - anti-establishment battle.

Now, I consider Thom Hartmann a moderate leftist, he isn't an anti-capitalist of any type. What he is is a brilliant mind with wide interests and an encyclopedic memory for facts especially historic ones. While he doesn't notate his blogs with citations if you've ever listened to his radio program or seen his cable TV show or read one of his books (on a wide range of subjects) you will know that his arguments are wholly supported by facts. In his writing, he addresses the common arguments that are used to rebut his points before necessary and according to how I was taught to write persuasively (the dark ages) is the correct way to present your thesis. He is a polite but meticulous interviewer. I find his character and values based on sound and universal principles.

Mr. Hartmann wrote this article upon the unfolding of this recent campaign event:

With all the flak that Hillary Clinton has been getting about being too close to Wall Street, she's been quick to point out that Bernie Sanders voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000.

And it sounds really bad for Bernie Sanders and his campaign's promise to reign in Wall Street excesses, especially because he frequently cites his voting record as evidence of his good judgment.

But what Clinton described isn't quite the whole story, and the whole story reveals a lot about Hillary Clinton's connections to the establishment.

As Alan Pyke pointed out over at ThinkProgress: the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was a modified version of an earlier bill that Bernie had voted for in the House of Representatives.

The earlier version that Sanders had voted for would have left room for regulators to go after fraudulent uses of derivatives, but it couldn't pass the Senate.

Then, while the nation was distracted in 2000 by the recount between George W. Bush and Al Gore; Phil Gramm, Richard Ewing, and a group of Clinton White House advisers worked out a "compromise" that made it nearly impossible to regulate futures and derivatives trading.

The establishment/anti-establishment rethoric was in order to give the 'Washington Outsider" issue historial context and inform on it's Federalist/Anti-Frederalist roots:

ust to be clear, this fight between "Establishment politicians" and "Anti-establishment politicians" is nothing new in American politics.

In fact, it's a fight that's literally as old as the country itself, going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson and his Anti-Federalists fighting with the Federalists, led by John Adams.

The fight basically came down to Thomas Jefferson arguing that "We, The People" should control our own destiny, and John Adams arguing that the "rabble" could not be trusted to govern ourselves."

Jefferson wrote to Francis Hopkinson and explicitly laid out what he saw as the shortcomings of the Constitution on March 13, 1789:

"I am not a federalist… What I disapproved from the first moment also, was the want of a bill of rights, to guard liberty against the legislative as well as the executive branches of the government; that is to say, to secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press, freedom from monopolies, freedom from unlawful imprisonment, freedom from a permanent military, and a trial by jury, in all cases determinable by the laws of the land.".

Most of those freedoms were eventually guaranteed on December 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

But Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and the Federalists fought hard to keep one of those rights from being guaranteed: "Freedom from monopolies in commerce".

That omission represents a longstanding divide in American politics between the vested interests of the rich and powerful aristocrats - and Jefferson's vision of a more egalitarian democratic Republic elected directly by "We, the People"

The entire article can be found at (it isn't long):

For myself, I stand neither a Federalist nor an Anti-Federalist and don't believe either extreme serves the welfare of the people. I imagine a system (that could be instituted) where by the National Government sets a universal regulatory minimums in all matters but that the details of implementation and enforcement are locally decided. In the interest of disclosure, John & John Q Adams are ancestors of mine and I do tend to come down more on the Federal Side of thing from a practical point of view. I do however see how important the "Anti-Monopoly" aspects of Anti-Federalism (that didn't make it into the Bill of Rights) are supremely important today as they stand as a Supra-Federal centralized body in todays world - with dangerous consequences.

I hope you enjoy Thom's writings.
edit on 9-2-2016 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 10:10 PM
Sound money makes Wall Street type fraud impossible. Or at least very uncommon.

All of the laws proposed to regulate Wall Street are addressing a problem made by the government. That is, the federal fiat money system, and fractional reserve banking.

All of the bad money stuff uses easy credit, and economic bubbles, Both of these are only possible by money creation.

A sound economy has no money creation, only wealth creation. That is, new stuff to use is traded for by whatever money already circulates.

Money creation makes more money for the same amount of stuff, which means that either prices go up, such as stock market prices, or money gets lent to cover derivatives.

Sound money goes up in value over time, the opposite of inflation.

Sound money limits the amount of loans to the amount of real wealth in society that is not used for anything else. Over time the amount of wealth in society increases and so does the amount of money available to loan or invest. This limitation on the money supply keeps loans and investments directed to the potentially successful enterprises.

Sound money also communicates the real value of everything in relation to everything else. Stability of prices lets comparisons of any choices, now and into the relatively certain future. All changes in the economy are signaled by prices, which are an impartial and honest messenger.

More laws lead to more laws, more uncertainty, and more wasted time.

ETA The monopolies Jefferson addresses are government enforced monopolies. All monopolies need gov regulation to prevent new competition from destroying the monopoly. Monopolies need gov and can only exist by gov. The free market destroys all monopolies.
edit on 9-2-2016 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)


log in