Obama: Limited Gov't That Preserves Free Markets 'Doesn't Work. It Has Never Worked

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

There are those that have and those that do not have. There are lords and there are servants. A business entrepreneur is a master/lord and an employee is a payed servant. Back in the old days the king/queen would let you grow food but they would keep a good percentage of the produce. Similary today we are taxed at our own labor and pay in terms of currency.
...

You obviously haven't experienced, or even read much about history, you just described what happens in SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST dictatorships...

The old Kings and Queens, used to claim they did all those things they did "for the good of the country and the crown", in socialism/communism it is done "for the good of the revolution and everyone", except that just like in feudalism the power is held only by a few who claim to do what's best for the people...

Except one is a right wing dictatorship legalised by the pope and the other is a left wing dictatorship for the people. All dictatorships are bad because they centralise power to a few hands.

Also under a monarchy you have far fewer rights than under a communist dictatorship. If you belong to the lower classes then you are constantly mistreated, such as by working more for less pay. Under communism everyone is theoretically equal and everyone is guranteed basic stuff.

Taxation is not part of a capitalistic society, in fact taxation is socialist/communist in nature...

I partially agree, but in the states we have taxation with little representation which equals fraud. The whole idea is to contribute to society for the common good. When the government is privately owned and controlled by the bankers, a lot of the money goes to pay interest on the debt.

Feudalism was certainly NOT capitalistic, since there is no free market, and the people for the most part do not have private property.

The nobles were entitled property but not for all the commoners. Feudalism was certainly capitalism in that there were different classes of people and the wage/salary system of working for others was prevalaint. You cannot have mulitple classes and claim everyone is equal. Just does not work. In fact this bares resemblance to the caste system of india.

In socialist/communist dictatorships, the top brass of the socialist/communist party/the Kings/Queens and lords hold power over all land and they have a say in what should be done with, or in that land.

With socialism and communism the people own a share of each public enterprise. More in communism than in socialism. That is why it is called PUBLIC and not private! Morever government is supposed to represent the people as well as the corporations(except with communism).

You are describing a monarchy system again and trying to draw unreasonable comparisons.

In Feudalism people lived in the lands of a few, the lords, and the people could not buy land, just like you find in socialist/communist systems.

In feudalism as with socialism some/many people could buy land. You cannot buy land with communism!

Although Feudalism is not completely socialistic, several features in Feudalism are socialist/communist.

Let's remind certain people the truth...

There is nothing socialistic or communistic with feudalism since the left encourages either equal opportunity(socialism) or equal outcome(communism). Feudalism is extreme capitalism for the elite and america is nearing that goal everytime republicans get nominated to washington dc.

In fact I shown you and others that the american government IS PRIVATE(technically a corporation)! Remember private versus public? When few control land&resources and earn a profit from that then CERTAINLY WE ARE DEALING WITH CAPITALISM!

Except moderate capitalism has regulations that evens out the playing field and encourages a true free market. When these regulations are ignored/abandoned for "special cases" it strengthens the notion we have controlled markets in each sector which reeks of elitism.

You just keep arguing the same broken pos theory that controlled market capitalism is not capitalism. If you are going to be so extremely dishonest(or unbelievably confused) then please talk to the wall from now on. Thanks!

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
We need a public central bank, where the government issues the currency and the prime rate goes to the treasury which means less taxation, if any at all. Ron Paul's idea is audit the FED and then break it appart into many private central banks each issuing their own currency. That is wrong because it creates confusion and is quite incompatible with the global enviroment.

No. The centralized bank system is how the Govt and Globalist control the US.
Remember, placing power back to the States and the People is the best solution.
Central planning a la Fed Govt has failed so far.

You fail to grasp the difference between a public central bank and a private central bank. If we had a public central bank then european nobles and big corporations would have no say in government because the government could print/issue all the money it needs, therefore making bribes irrellevant.

You are arguing immatterial or at best stuff of secondary importance. States have power but the federal government law is supreme. The united states of america is not a union because it is a federation, and a corporately owned one at that!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07



You fail to grasp the difference between a public central bank and a private central bank. If we had a public central bank then european nobles and big corporations would have no say in government because the government could print/issue all the money it needs, therefore making bribes irrellevant.

How so? There would still be currency. Bribes would still be offered, think outside the greenback.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
You are arguing immatterial or at best stuff of secondary importance. States have power but the federal government law is supreme. The united states of america is not a union because it is a federation, and a corporately owned one at that!

Actually, that is not how it was designed.
The federal Govt was to be the supreme and limited law of the land, establishing a baseline, if you will for all.
The States could then operate how they saw fit, within the Federal limited restrictions.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07



You fail to grasp the difference between a public central bank and a private central bank. If we had a public central bank then european nobles and big corporations would have no say in government because the government could print/issue all the money it needs, therefore making bribes irrellevant.

How so? There would still be currency. Bribes would still be offered, think outside the greenback.

Because it would be easier to bribe/treat themselves to a higer pay then it would be to accept bribes. Even if they accept outside bribes the government would have much easier access to currency which means less taxes need to be collected and no interest payments to the bankers.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
You are arguing immatterial or at best stuff of secondary importance. States have power but the federal government law is supreme. The united states of america is not a union because it is a federation, and a corporately owned one at that!

Actually, that is not how it was designed.
The federal Govt was to be the supreme and limited law of the land, establishing a baseline, if you will for all.
The States could then operate how they saw fit, within the Federal limited restrictions.

Perhaps it was designed like the EU, were each member nation(or state) was semi-autonomous to a larger degree then a classic federation. Perhaps it was a union, but still that does not change what he have today.

I see nothing wrong with a federation, except that the government is privately owned by the bankers, like most(if not all) countries in the world.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


Because it would be easier to bribe/treat themselves to a higer pay then it would be to accept bribes. Even if they accept outside bribes the government would have much easier access to currency which means less taxes need to be collected and no interest payments to the bankers.

Oh come on, really?
I think it would happen any way you flip it.
I just don't like the idea of the Fed running the show, and printing currency with no physical backing.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Perhaps it was designed like the EU, were each member nation(or state) was semi-autonomous to a larger degree then a classic federation. Perhaps it was a union, but still that does not change what he have today.

I see nothing wrong with a federation, except that the government is privately owned by the bankers, like most(if not all) countries in the world.

So we both see that the Govt is corrupt then?

reply to post by Misoir


This post is nothing more than a right wing fanatical lunatic trolling. GMAB...Free markets and unregulated industry is a bad thing. The free market didn't fine BP for destroying the fishing the industry and leaving many gulf coast residents homeless.

The free market did not self regulate the number of PCB's in our polluted streams, lakes and bays. One more little fact to burst your right wing bubble...

Did you know that when America had the highest taxes on the top income earners that the economy paid more to workers. Trickle down my butt!

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger


This post is nothing more than a right wing fanatical lunatic trolling. GMAB...Free markets and unregulated industry is a bad thing. The free market didn't fine BP for destroying the fishing the industry and leaving many gulf coast residents homeless.

That is not the job of the Free Market.
If the Govt wasn't so corrupt, then it would have not only completed the inspection of the rig correctly, it would have allowed cleanup faster and fines accordingly.

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger
The free market did not self regulate the number of PCB's in our polluted streams, lakes and bays. One more little fact to burst your right wing bubble...

Yep, and the EPA and Govt has done such a great job of that, huh?

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger
Did you know that when America had the highest taxes on the top income earners that the economy paid more to workers. Trickle down my butt!

How so?
Were you better off financially with Bush, or 0bama?

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


Because it would be easier to bribe/treat themselves to a higer pay then it would be to accept bribes. Even if they accept outside bribes the government would have much easier access to currency which means less taxes need to be collected and no interest payments to the bankers.

Oh come on, really?
I think it would happen any way you flip it.
I just don't like the idea of the Fed running the show, and printing currency with no physical backing.

If I had a printing press that could counterfeit money 100% like authentic currency, why would I need YOUR MONEY? In fact the reason they discourage public central banking was based on the premise that government would print so much of it that hyper-inflation would ensue.

It kind of makes my point. But would you prefer the threat of inflation(which we have anyway) to higher taxes and being a perpetual slave to the bankers AND investors? Sorry I forgot about those pesky T-Bonds us commoners hold.

Some people consider profits through investments just as ethical as through labor.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Perhaps it was designed like the EU, were each member nation(or state) was semi-autonomous to a larger degree then a classic federation. Perhaps it was a union, but still that does not change what he have today.

I see nothing wrong with a federation, except that the government is privately owned by the bankers, like most(if not all) countries in the world.

So we both see that the Govt is corrupt then?

Do you know of any government that is not corrupt? Knowledgeable citizens force transparency, which helps bring corruption down to manageable levels. Hence why there is a disinformation agenda on mass media and the general dumbing down of the populace!

Here is something else to think about. Why does the value of currency fluctuate according to its supply, rather than have an agreed upon constant value? And how can anyone not privy to that knowledge, know as fact the amount of currency ever issued and what amount of that is still circulating other than taking the government's word for it?

The same government that will lie and cheat about many other things.

I can understand basing it on DNP and/or exports and imports versus other nations, but this is different to the physical supply of outstanding currency. We don't need the backing of gold/silver either, because finite amounts of gold/silver exist which would not accomodate for a stretching currency supply.

We need a fair fiat monetary system rather than austrian economics. Ron Paul supports the last, which currently even austria doesn't support.

reply to post by RightWingAvenger


Exactly!!! A free market cannot remain free unless government enforces regulations evenly across the board and breaks up "trusts" before they form. I think ronald reagan with his deregulation agenda and leveraged buyout scheme, then george bush with his repealing of the glass-steagel act that allowed banks to become stock brokers again, DOUBLE HANDEDLY setback mild capitalism(socialism) to become controlled market capitalism with growing monopolies in each business sector.

Conservatives only deny, deny, deny, deny. They know small government equals the wild west of the old days which suits globalisation 100%, especially with the lack of sufficient tariffs. They want their cake and be able to eat it too. They are dishonest!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

We need a public central bank, where the government issues the currency and the prime rate goes to the treasury which means less taxation, if any at all. Ron Paul's idea is audit the FED and then break it appart into many private central banks each issuing their own currency. That is wrong because it creates confusion and is quite incompatible with the global enviroment.

There should be no "global environment"... EACH country, and their people, should decide what to do instead of this push for a One World Government which obviously you seem to have swallowed willingly.

Ron Paul knows that what we need is to get back to the gold and silver standard AS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION CLEARLY SAYS SHOULD BE THE ONLY ECONOMIC SYSTEM in our REPUBLIC...

You really have no idea what in the world you are talking about.. You are so eager to create your own form of "socialist world government", but in your ignorance all you are doing is creating oxymorons.

What are you going to call for next? For "Public Private Property"?...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
That is pure misinformation. Anyone with an ounce of common sense sees global capitalism with lack of sufficient tariffs, intentionally promoted by the global investors/speculators.

Where the hell have you been living?... Capitalism DOES NOT promote a One World Government... Global SOCIALISM does promote the creation of a One World Government... From the UN, to every world organization that wants the promotion of your so beloved "one World Government" happen to be socialists, if not worst.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Except we want a public central bank rather than a private one or competing private banks.

WOW...so now you are speaking for ALL of humankind?... Keep living in your dellusional world...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And how is castro doing? You obviously left cuba because you could not give your land to the communist regime and did not want to work for the nation. Che quevara would hate you!

Again, nothing but IGNORANCE spews from every pore of your being...

But I can see now that castro and che guevara are your idols, and who you look up to... Two bloodthirsty murderers who brought nothing but pain, suffering and death to Cuba...

Do yourself a favor and READ directly from Che Guevara's journals what kind of man he was...

This is the kind of man IGNORANT, and bloodthirsty warmongers idolize...

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution. And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."
...
Guevara told the UN General Assembly in 1964. "We execute! And we will continue executing as long as it is necessary."

www.theaustralian.com.au...

www.therealcuba.com...

If that is what you are trying to become, I pity anyone who is close to you...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Exactly!!! A free market cannot remain free unless government enforces regulations evenly across the board and breaks up "trusts" before they form.
...

Again with the oxymoronic, ignorant arguments?...

Can you even understand what you are claiming?...

Do you understand the difference between FREE and FORCING/ENFORCING?...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Exactly!!! A free market cannot remain free unless government enforces regulations evenly across the board and breaks up "trusts" before they form.
...

Again with the oxymoronic, ignorant arguments?...

Can you even understand what you are claiming?...

Do you understand the difference between FREE and FORCING/ENFORCING?...

I was going to ask you the same questions. I understand you have no idea what you are talking about as you live in an upside-down world. Maybe you were dropped on your head when you were a child?

A free market should NEVER EXIST and global capitalism should be swapped with market socialism. I do not want to live in a jungle where the employer is the boss and can treat his employee as a slave. You on the other hand should experience what a sweat shop is. Go to china and work for a dollar a day you fool, then come back and tell me "sorry, you were correct all along".

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Before fidel castro and che quevara came down with their marxist revolution, cuba was a mafia infested country with prostitution and gambling in every corner. The locals were abused and exploited everywhere they turned.

Obviously you distort the truth whenever it suits you. You probably left cuba because you didn't like losing your land and perhaps your life to some misplaced cause. Good! I never supported communism...and I have said it like a thousand times already.

But it does not mean I have to support free market capitalism either. I support socialism. Learn what it is already!!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I was going to ask you the same questions. I understand you have no idea what you are talking about as you live in an upside-down world. Maybe you were dropped on your head when you were a child?

i was the one dropped in my head?... really?...

Let's see your next "brilliant" argument...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
A free market should NEVER EXIST and global capitalism should be swapped with market socialism. I do not want to live in a jungle where the employer is the boss and can treat his employee as a slave. You on the other hand should experience what a sweat shop is.

You called it "free market socialism", another of your "brilliant" ideas...

Obviously you are so ignorant that you don't know that in socialism THE STATE OWNS ALL MEANS OF PRODUCTION HENCE THERE CANNOT BE A FREE MARKET...

And you actually think your ideas are intelligent...

Let's see your next "brilliant" argument...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07Go to china and work for a dollar a day you fool, then come back and tell me "sorry, you were correct all along".

Do you even know what type of government exists in China?...


Let's try to refresh your memory...

China

Government: Nominal Marxist–Leninist single-party socialist state

en.wikipedia.org...

BTW, EVERY socialist dictatorship has their own sweat shops... In Cuba they are forced work camps for children starting from around 11-12 years old and on, what the left in the United States call " forced Community Service" and what the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS and OBama signed and passed as law with bill H.R. 1388.

But hey do not worry, if you live in the United States soon enough that "forced Community Service" will be implemented and we will be having our own government work shops... Thanks to the LEFT...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Before fidel castro and che quevara came down with their marxist revolution, cuba was a mafia infested country with prostitution and gambling in every corner. The locals were abused and exploited everywhere they turned.

Obviously you distort the truth whenever it suits you. You probably left cuba because you didn't like losing your land and perhaps your life to some misplaced cause. Good! I never supported communism...and I have said it like a thousand times already.

Oooh, and you know this exactly how?...Because some leftwinger wrote a book claiming so?...

There were some injustices done in Cuba but Cuba in general, and it's people were fairing BETTER than under the socialism/communism of castro, and the whole "cuba was run by the mafia and was controlled by the U.S. IS NOTHING MORE THAN CASTRO'S PROPAGANDA"...

Cuba Before Fidel Castro

According to Statistics from the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the International Labor Organization

From the first few days following the revolutionary victory of 1959 in Cuba, after the hasty departure of dictator Fulgencio Batista, the new government initiated a progressive control of all the media, an act that went hand in hand with a propaganda campaign unprecedented in the history of the island.

As can be seen 38 years later, the purpose of the campaign was and has been to create an unfavorable image of pre-revolutionary Cuba, an image that would justify the subsequent political conduct of the dictatorship of Fidel Castro.

Some people believe that to disseminate information that demonstrates that pre-Castro Cuba was truly a developing country is to justify the acts of Batista. The truth is that the Cuban progress of that time was fundamentally a result of the efforts of all sectors of that society during 57 years of republic, after almost five centuries of life as a nation.

Because of it, in 1950, two years before Batista's second access to power, the Cuban peso had the same value as the U.S. dollar.

Given impetus not only by the official press within the island, but also by Radio Havana Cuba, a state-run radio station that broadcasts to the rest of the world in dozens of languages, and by the official news agency Prensa Latina, the campaign made special emphasis on the economic misery under which the island supposedly lived, and on the economic control that the United States had exerted over it.

In the eyes of those who did not have concrete and accurate information at their disposal, Cuba was little more that a bordello managed by Washington.

This part of the campaign was meant to help justify the existence of a Communist regime whose goal, supposedly, was to bring about deep social transformations in a nation "destroyed by poverty."

If one were to believe the Castroist propaganda, one would have the impression that Cuba was a country with a 40% illiteracy rate, with the greedy hands of multi-national US conglomerates controlling every facet of the national economy; a country without doctors,where workers and farmers were horribly exploited, with a high level of unemployment, and with houses of prostitution and gambling casinos on each corner.

Of course, Cuba was not a fully developed country, nor were its resources distributed equally among all its people -nor have they been equitably distributed during Castroism-, but in 1958 only 14% of the capital invested in the island came from the US, and there were no more than 10 gambling casinos in the country. At the same time, 62% of sugar mills, the principal sites of sugar production -which itself was the most important component of the Cuban economy- were owned by Cubans.

In 1953, Cuba was 22nd among the world's nations in the number of doctors per capita, with 128.6 for each 100 thousand inhabitants. [/siz

The mortality rate was 5.8 -third lowest in the world-, while the mortality rate of the United States was 9.5 and that of Canada 7.6.

Towards the end of the 50s, the island had the lowest infant mortality rate of Latin America, with 3.76, followed by Argentina with 6.11, Venezuela with 6.56, and Uruguay with 7.30, as per data provided by the World Health Organization.

Cuba was number 33 among 112 nations in the world as far as the level of daily reading, with 101 newspaper copies published per 1,000 inhabitants, which also contradicts the argument that the country was inhabited by a great number of illiterates.

Even as far as so-called luxury items, in 1959 Cuba had one radio per each five inhabitants, one television set for each 28, one telephone for each 38, and one automobile for each 40 inhabitants, according to the Annual Statistical Report of the United Nations.
...

www2.fiu.edu...

As a matter of fact, even the greatest and most world-renowned Cuban writers and artists had already created their most important works before Castro's arrival to power. Among them, their politics notwithstanding, were José Lezama Lima, probably the most outstanding Cuban man of letters of this century; poet and dramatist Virgilio Piñera, who revolutionized Cuban theater with the premiere of Electra Garrigó in 1948, two years before French-Romanian Eugene Ionesco, father of the Theater of the Absurd, premiered The Bald Soprano in Paris; the painters Amelia Pelaez, René Portocarrero, Wilfredo Lam and many others; novelist Alejo Carpentier, author of The Century of Lights, poet Nicolás Guillén; the ballerina Alicia Alonso; and, of course, an extraordinary number of composers and interpreters of Cuban popular music, such as Ernesto Lecuona, Amadeo Roldán, Alejandro García Caturla, the Trío Matamoros, Sindo Garay, Eliseo Grenet, Hubert de Blank, Benny Moré, Dámaso Pérez Prado, and many more.

What follows is some data regarding public health, the labor sector, and education:

PUBLIC HEALTH: In 1958, Cuba had a population of six million, six hundred thirty one thousand inhabitants (6,630,921, to be exact). At that time, there were 35 thousand (35,000) hospital beds in the country, an average of one hospital bed per 190 inhabitants, a number which then exceeded the goal of developed countries, which was 200 inhabitants per hospital bed. In 1960, the United States had one hospital bed per 109 inhabitants.

Also in 1958, the Cuban nation had an average of one doctor per 980 inhabitants, a number that was surpassed in Latin America only by Argentina, with one doctor per 760 inhabitants, and Uruguay, with one per each 860. Cuba had one dentist per 2,978 inhabitants then.

This data is found in the archives of the World Health Organization.

LABOR RELATIONS: In 1958, an industrial worker in Cuba earned an average salary of the equivalent of $6 US dollars per each 8-hour work day, while an agricultural worker earned the equivalent of $3 US dollars. Cuba then ranked number eight (8) in the world as far as salaries paid to industrial workers, outperformed only by the following countries:

the United States ($16.80)

Canada ($11.73)

Sweden ($ 8.10)

Switzerland ($ 8.00)

New Zealand ($ 6.72)

Denmark ($ 6.46)

Norway ($ 6.10)

As far as salaries for agricultural workers, Cuba was number seven (7) in the world, outperformed only by the following countries:

Canada ($7.18)

the United States ($6.80)

New Zealand ($6.72)

Australia ($6.61)

Sweden ($5.47)

Norway ($4.38)

This data was published by the International Labor Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1960. In 1958, Cuba had a labor force of two million two hundred four thousand workers (2,204,000). The rate of unemployment at that time was 7.07%, the lowest in Latin America, as per data from the Cuban Labor Ministry.

EDUCATION: That same year, Cuba had three government financed universities and three others that were privately run. There were twenty thousand (20,000) students enrolled in the government run universities.

There were 900 officially recognized private schools, including the three private universities. The total number of students enrolled at these institutions was over one hundred thousand (100,000).

The public school system employed twenty five thousand (25,000) teachers, and the private school system counted with 3,500.

In the middle of the 1950s, there were 1,206 rural school houses in Cuba, as well as a mobile library system which boasted a total of 179,738 books.

Also in 1958, Cuba had 114 institutions of higher education, below the university level; among them were technical institutes, polytechnic and professional schools, which were financed by the government. Just in 1958, these institutions graduated 38,428 students. In 1958, the island's illiteracy rate was 18%.

This data is found in the archives of Cuba's Ministry of Education.

Cuba was the Latin American country with the highest budget for education in 1958, with 23% of the total budget earmarked for this expense. It was followed by Costa Rica (20%), and Guatemala and Chile, each with 16%. This data comes from America in Statistics, published by the Pan American Union.

(Translated by GLADYS P. MARTINEZ)
...

www2.fiu.edu...

But you go ahead and keep believing the lies from the pro-castro thugs...

Socialism DOES NOT WORK, and it certainly does not help the people...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


On the contrary, it is your post that displays ignorance. The State has never existed in isolation from the market - they were always intertwined from the very beginning of the emergence of capitalism from feudalism.

The idea that State can be separated from the "free" market is right-wing libertarian myth. It never was, never can be.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


If you are going to believe batista's propaganda, then I have a few planets in the milky way galaxy to sell you.

Are you interested in purchasing them at a ridiculously low price???

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

On the contrary, it is your post that displays ignorance. The State has never existed in isolation from the market - they were always intertwined from the very beginning of the emergence of capitalism from feudalism.

The idea that State can be separated from the "free" market is right-wing libertarian myth. It never was, never can be.

The people who believe a perpetual free market is possible are more gullible than the people who believe in a communist utopia where the government can do no wrong, and are almost as gullible as the children who believe in santa claus.

I can't believe the level of disinformation being spued on ATS, among other places. Either we are dealing with cia dupes or right wing think tanks like rand, inc. who enjoy misinforming the public. You would think universities that charge 30k per year demand higher standards from their students.