Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Crony Capitalism - The American Economy is Not a Free-Market Economy

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Not true the depression was done by the central bankers to bring in the federal reserve. People vote with their dollars in a free market, that is the best economy that was ever invented. There is nothing better yet.

America is no longer a free market because the central banks are in control of everything. America has been captured for 100 years and people are still asleep.




posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by monkofmimir
 


Big pharma is powerful because the government allowed them to be powerful particularly the FDA. Government will pick winners and losers. That's why u need a limited government, which can not control one company and exempt the other. Libertarian limited government is the best balance.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by monkofmimir
 


Yea u r right. At the top is fascist (banker controlled) at the grass roots they use socialist philosophy as a control grid for the economy.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   

FyreByrd

monkofmimir
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


monopolies come and go, theyre strangle hold is usually broken by inovation. however our society has reguated inovation to the point only the largest companies can be truly inovative in most markets. Also governments now view many of these monoplies as to big to fail and will quite happily bail them out or hobble the compition with selective legislation.
edit on 26-9-2013 by monkofmimir because: (no reason given)


Not when game-changing innovation is bought up and shelved.


Absolutely. That's what I witnessed when working in the oil industry.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   

FyreByrd

Not when game-changing innovation is bought up and shelved.


Unfortunatly this is an inevitable conclusion of our patent and copyright laws, before there creation people were abke to take the inovations of their parents generation and improve them, now with patent and copyright laws, especially ones that are so excessivly draconian inovation can easily be stifled.

Patent laws are potrayed as helping the little guy not have his ideas ripped off by the big companies but in reality all it helps is the big companies to stop any inovation they think may harm them from falling into someone elses hands. To ad insult to injury the monopoly then just sits on the idea because it would either hurt their profit margins in some form (usually because it would require they change how their buisiness operates) or is deemed to risky so never attempted.

Copyright is just as bad, just look at all this stuff about making a copy of a film is theft. I guess tourist must be the most prolific theives in the world, every year millions of them travel around the world and take billions of photos of famous landmarks, art pieces and the like.

The current buisness model for games/movies/tv shows/music has died due to inovation and alternative such as kickstarter like projects have appeared but instead of moving with the times these industries are trying to fight the natural progression and criminalize progress.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by monkofmimir
 


It's not just an issue of copyright laws/patents. It's a deliberate shelving and, ergo, an outright abuse of the process in terms of progress and innovation. I've mentioned this before on a few other threads but I grew up in the oil business. Back in the 90's, I asked a marketing rep from one of the big oil companies, whose family was owned wells, what it was that the company was going to do when Peak Oil hit? I was really curious. He told me outright that the company bought up research on alternative energy sources and put it on the back burner just for when that day should come. "No worries," he said. "We'll still have control of the energy market. We've been doing it for years." He mistakenly thought I would be relieved since I had such a vested interest in the oil industries longevity but he was wrong. I was horrified. That was 20 years ago and they are still doing it.

Take a good hard look at the major oil companies' annual reports. They'll proudly parade out some of their more novel "green research" like Conoco Phillips' and their completely organic photovoltaic solar plant cells. What they are holding onto is breathtaking and they've been doing it for decades. Why? Because they are vested in oil. Oil wells and rigs, refineries, distribution centers, and retail locations. Twenty years ago, they built a gas station that wasn't anything special but the cost of it was $3 million. Why would they release any of this and basically make every bit of property they own, which is very considerable, obsolete?

They wouldn't. They'd control until they had bled the last drop out. And yep, they control it by patents. The above is a very real example of what is done and any doubters, go take a look at the annual reports of the largest oil companies in the world.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 

I have a thread that touches upon this topic from the intellectual property perspective that is more or less indistinguishable in practice from patents and copyrights.

The point being that it is effectively impossible to enforce any of these laws without highly disruptive state interference. Interference that is not worth the benefits attributed to it in the popular narrative. Therefore, they are pointless and destructive to competition, the backbone of the free market.

The only problem is that there would likely be a tendency toward more 'vertical' business models which have a higher likelihood of maintaining secrecy of process against corporate espionage. I could live with that compared to the monopolies that we now see supported by cronyistic state support and defense.

Intellectual Property is Not True Property
edit on 27-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


As I said in another thread, no one "owns" anything.

If you don't pay property taxes, your land is seized. If you don't pay your debts, your physical assets could be seized.

When you buy land, you are basically just buying the right to live on it and possibly develop it.

We haven't been "free" since mankind put a person in charge of another.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

MystikMushroom
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


As I said in another thread, no one "owns" anything.

If you don't pay property taxes, your land is seized. If you don't pay your debts, your physical assets could be seized.

When you buy land, you are basically just buying the right to live on it and possibly develop it.

We haven't been "free" since mankind put a person in charge of another.

I thought you were a socialist, you are sounding more like you might be sympathetic to individualism.

Are you being sarcastic or matter-of-fact?



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Yeah, he's got me a little confused, too. My response to the idea of property, specifically land, is who are we to claim ownership of it? Did we buy the shares of the millions of critters also inhabiting it? Just as somebody who spent a number of years in a tribe whose concept of land is that "no single person owns it as it belongs to all that live upon it".



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   

WhiteAlice
reply to post by greencmp
 


Yeah, he's got me a little confused, too. My response to the idea of property, specifically land, is who are we to claim ownership of it? Did we buy the shares of the millions of critters also inhabiting it? Just as somebody who spent a number of years in a tribe whose concept of land is that "no single person owns it as it belongs to all that live upon it".

Well, since I believe that private property of all kinds including real estate are paramount to the maintenance of freedom and liberty, I do believe that one can 'own' land. I think the problems arise from chain of possession issues, that is criminal acquisition, the validity of which can be adjudicated.

People have this fallacious idea that western civilization came along and introduced the idea to native peoples everywhere who were all doing just fine and knew of no such thing as possessions which is absurd. They also owned land, in fact, the reason they are so pissed at some of the westerners was that, in many cases, it was taken from them without due compensation and/or against their will.
edit on 27-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


In the tribe that I was living in for nearly a decade, the concept of land ownership varied between repugnant to an uncomfortable concept. What's fallacious is to presume that every tribe is the same and to paint their beliefs under the same brush. I lived with the Navajo. They believed that use of the land found between the Four Sacred Mountains (Dinehtah) was given to them as community on which to inhabit and share with other forms of life. In fact, the respect for that life can be found in the intense number of taboos found in the cultural beliefs. You don't mess with any other critter, no matter how small. Dinehtah was the area in which they inhabited and they would sometimes defend it in response to encroachments by other tribes.

In fact, part of the reason why they got in trouble with the US was because of their concept of property ownership. In the Navajo culture, theft was considered to be a redistribution and a correction of an imbalance so when they saw these ranchers settling near Dinehtah with all of their sheep and cattle, they thought "oh they have too much" and took some. Even today, to be rich out there is to be viewed with suspicion. One of the things I frequently heard was "Beware rich medicine men." It sounds like socialism but not entirely as there was zero centralization and the economic redistribution was solely left up to the individual.

Like I said, not all tribes are the same. That's the real fallacy.
edit on 27/9/13 by WhiteAlice because: (no reason given)


Adding a small portion of the Navajo list of taboos in regards to nature and wildlife as it's kind of entertaining. Some make sense, some don't but perhaps on a karmic level: www.navajocentral.org...
edit on 27/9/13 by WhiteAlice because: added the taboo list



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

WhiteAlice
reply to post by greencmp
 


In the tribe that I was living in for nearly a decade, the concept of land ownership varied between repugnant to an uncomfortable concept. What's fallacious is to presume that every tribe is the same and to paint their beliefs under the same brush. I lived with the Navajo. They believed that use of the land found between the Four Sacred Mountains (Dinehtah) was given to them as community on which to inhabit and share with other forms of life. In fact, the respect for that life can be found in the intense number of taboos found in the cultural beliefs. You don't mess with any other critter, no matter how small. Dinehtah was the area in which they inhabited and they would sometimes defend it in response to encroachments by other tribes.

In fact, part of the reason why they got in trouble with the US was because of their concept of property ownership. In the Navajo culture, theft was considered to be a redistribution and a correction of an imbalance so when they saw these ranchers settling near Dinehtah with all of their sheep and cattle, they thought "oh they have too much" and took some. Even today, to be rich out there is to be viewed with suspicion. One of the things I frequently heard was "Beware rich medicine men." It sounds like socialism but not entirely as there was zero centralization and the economic redistribution was solely left up to the individual.

Like I said, not all tribes are the same. That's the real fallacy.
edit on 27/9/13 by WhiteAlice because: (no reason given)


Adding a small portion of the Navajo list of taboos in regards to nature and wildlife as it's kind of entertaining. Some make sense, some don't but perhaps on a karmic level: www.navajocentral.org...
edit on 27/9/13 by WhiteAlice because: added the taboo list

I think you are confusing tribal property with no property. I guarantee if you go onto some other tribes territory and take something without asking, you will discover what property rights are regardless of cultural norms.

The idea of responsibility to that property is presumed in all cultures (individual, family or tribal), if a person/family/tribe is misusing the land that it has claim to it has effectively abdicated that claim to it.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


Lived nearly a decade out there and also in a time where they were introducing the concept of private land ownership through the development of Karigan Estates in St. Michael, AZ. Karigan Estates was the tribe's desperate attempt to maintain the population of educated Navajo through the provision of housing when the tribe had a tremendous housing shortage. I am most certainly not mistaken. It was quite a change and one that had varying responses. Most of the families that moved in there were either mixed couples or educated (Westernized) Navajo. I know this very well.

Report on the case study for this new development by Navajo Partnership for Housing:

In the Navajo Nation, the challenge for the Navajo Partnership for Housing is to develop a housing market where there is not one, and where land ownership runs counter to traditional practice and values.



The Navajo concept of the earth is that of a deity whose bounty is held in common. In the traditional way of thinking, the idea of buying and selling pieces of Mother Earth is a sacrilegious act.

www.nw.org...

As I said, be extraordinarily cautious when lumping together tribal beliefs under some single banner. Each tribe is fundamentally different and it's disrespectful to those differences.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

WhiteAlice
reply to post by greencmp
 


Lived nearly a decade out there and also in a time where they were introducing the concept of private land ownership through the development of Karigan Estates in St. Michael, AZ. Karigan Estates was the tribe's desperate attempt to maintain the population of educated Navajo through the provision of housing when the tribe had a tremendous housing shortage. I am most certainly not mistaken. It was quite a change and one that had varying responses. Most of the families that moved in there were either mixed couples or educated (Westernized) Navajo. I know this very well.

Report on the case study for this new development by Navajo Partnership for Housing:

In the Navajo Nation, the challenge for the Navajo Partnership for Housing is to develop a housing market where there is not one, and where land ownership runs counter to traditional practice and values.



The Navajo concept of the earth is that of a deity whose bounty is held in common. In the traditional way of thinking, the idea of buying and selling pieces of Mother Earth is a sacrilegious act.

www.nw.org...

As I said, be extraordinarily cautious when lumping together tribal beliefs under some single banner. Each tribe is fundamentally different and it's disrespectful to those differences.

Again, you are missing the point that tribal property is tribal property, the issue that they are dealing with is how to subdivide that property equitably and introducing personal non-tribal ownership.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


That's what happens when we let Money=Freedom Of Speech.

The criminal politicians are more than happy to oblige the Big Global Corporate and Banking Industries to fill their wallets.

Notice that Obamacare will be benefitting those sectors the most at the top at the expense to our nation:

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $117,495,102
Insurance $77,972,400

Oil & Gas $71,097,273
Computers/Internet $70,309,806
Electric Utilities $67,492,784
TV/Movies/Music $63,285,594
Business Associations $51,108,094
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $49,961,979
Securities & Investment $47,251,058
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $45,639,711
Education $43,224,879
Health Professionals $41,625,338
Real Estate $39,402,260
Air Transport $38,037,650
Civil Servants/Public Officials $34,487,136
Health Services/HMOs $33,771,795
Commercial Banks $31,522,875
Automotive $30,566,147
Chemical & Related Manufacturing $30,562,118
Defense Aerospace $29,604,490

www.opensecrets.org...



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 


Yep.

That's why I call it the "Marxist / Corporatist" agenda !!!

Grampaw Karl wrote the book. He even wrote the un-published handbook !!!!
{ passed out during the banker classroom sessions }



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


You're trying to frame a concept under your specific world view. Look at this quote:


The Navajo concept of the earth is that of a deity whose bounty is held in common. In the traditional way of thinking, the idea of buying and selling pieces of Mother Earth is a sacrilegious act.


You can't own a deity. That's the tradition. Even the idea of "tribal property" is a foreign one that was brought to the tribe by the US government.

Timber, water, the vegetation--communal property. If a patch of timber is near another family's hogan, then one must ask permission to use it (and as a note, hogans were traditionally only built with fallen logs--they didn't even cut down trees for them) out of respect for tradition despite it being communal property. The use of a patch of land may "belong" to a family through tradition but they do not "own" the land. It seems like a little thing but it's a huge distinction. To say that that the land is owned by the tribe or an individual would be sacrilege.

Livestock, jewelry, clothing. blankets--privately owned but may be subject to economic redistribution.

There's an important story about how the Navajo acquired agriculture. When they arrived in Dinehtah, they found the Pueblo already there and growing fields of corn. Needing corn themselves, they would go and steal it from the Pueblo. Finally, the Pueblo got fed up with it and, instead, taught the Navajo how to grow corn for themselves so that they would no longer need to steal corn from the Pueblo.

However, even these tenuous concepts of property ownership in terms of livestock or fields are still not really how we equate property. They do not "own" the livestock. It is a gift of nature that can be taken away. In a lot of ways, they were raiders. Even things like jewelry were not owned by a single person but by that person's family. Out there, you can see Navajo grandmothers completely decked out in probably thousands of dollars in jewelry. She doesn't wear this to show off her own personal wealth. She wears it to honor her family and clan. Those Navajo who choose to accumulate personal wealth are not admired or pointed out as someone to be emulated. In fact, they may be suspected of witchcraft--something traditionally punishable by death.

So, there is property but it is almost always communal property. Gifts of nature--a stand of trees, livestock--can be considered private property only in so much that they are not taken away by act of nature or other. However, the stand of trees does not belong to you so that you can cut it down. Traditionally, only fallen logs should be used. Livestock? It may belong to your family (extended) but its life does not belong to you. If you take its life, you thank it for its gift and sacrifice and honor what it will bring to you and yours. The sheep owns its own life. I've gone to many butcherings of sheep and this was tradition as the knife slit the throat.

I really hope you get it this time. The concept of "belonging to" or property ownership, even on a tribal level, for the Navajo is extraordinarily foreign to those of European descent.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

WhiteAlice
reply to post by greencmp
 


You're trying to frame a concept under your specific world view. Look at this quote:


The Navajo concept of the earth is that of a deity whose bounty is held in common. In the traditional way of thinking, the idea of buying and selling pieces of Mother Earth is a sacrilegious act.


You can't own a deity. That's the tradition. Even the idea of "tribal property" is a foreign one that was brought to the tribe by the US government.

Timber, water, the vegetation--communal property. If a patch of timber is near another family's hogan, then one must ask permission to use it (and as a note, hogans were traditionally only built with fallen logs--they didn't even cut down trees for them) out of respect for tradition despite it being communal property. The use of a patch of land may "belong" to a family through tradition but they do not "own" the land. It seems like a little thing but it's a huge distinction. To say that that the land is owned by the tribe or an individual would be sacrilege.

Livestock, jewelry, clothing. blankets--privately owned but may be subject to economic redistribution.

There's an important story about how the Navajo acquired agriculture. When they arrived in Dinehtah, they found the Pueblo already there and growing fields of corn. Needing corn themselves, they would go and steal it from the Pueblo. Finally, the Pueblo got fed up with it and, instead, taught the Navajo how to grow corn for themselves so that they would no longer need to steal corn from the Pueblo.

However, even these tenuous concepts of property ownership in terms of livestock or fields are still not really how we equate property. They do not "own" the livestock. It is a gift of nature that can be taken away. In a lot of ways, they were raiders. Even things like jewelry were not owned by a single person but by that person's family. Out there, you can see Navajo grandmothers completely decked out in probably thousands of dollars in jewelry. She doesn't wear this to show off her own personal wealth. She wears it to honor her family and clan. Those Navajo who choose to accumulate personal wealth are not admired or pointed out as someone to be emulated. In fact, they may be suspected of witchcraft--something traditionally punishable by death.

So, there is property but it is almost always communal property. Gifts of nature--a stand of trees, livestock--can be considered private property only in so much that they are not taken away by act of nature or other. However, the stand of trees does not belong to you so that you can cut it down. Traditionally, only fallen logs should be used. Livestock? It may belong to your family (extended) but its life does not belong to you. If you take its life, you thank it for its gift and sacrifice and honor what it will bring to you and yours. The sheep owns its own life. I've gone to many butcherings of sheep and this was tradition as the knife slit the throat.

I really hope you get it this time. The concept of "belonging to" or property ownership, even on a tribal level, for the Navajo is extraordinarily foreign to those of European descent.

Fair enough, I don't want to dispel your understanding of tribal property, it is irrelevant to the conversation.

So, running with this concept, do you think that complete absence of ownership of land is the way forward?



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


I'm going to ignore your remark because you were the one who dismissed a tribal source on the subject of land ownership to perpetuate your own dogmatic belief.

The closest that we have in concepts towards a communal land is "the commons". Basically, the idea of shared resources that are not owned by are used by all members of society. I can see the overall value in terms of preserving those common resources for all and its longevity in terms of preserving those commons; however, I'm really loathe to say that the concept of land ownership should be abolished. Our world view in Western society just is not conducive to it. As a society, we're more prone to compete with the Jones into terms of wealth accumulation. Put us on the commons and we'd rape the land simply to compete with each other. In fact, that's what we've been doing, isn't it? It's the tragedy of the commons. At least with private land ownership, then you reap what you sow and should your actions be felt on another's private property in so much that it damages it, then they are allowed the opportunity for civil recourse. Personally, I think that's the best we can do so no, I would say that private land ownership for our specific segment of society is most likely the best solution for it.






top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join