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

Originally posted by mastahunta

conservative ideas are the ones that make sure the corporation and the bankers
are eternally free, thanks to hiding behind the free market, marketing plan

Wanna challenge the banks today? You are deemed a socialist. Guess who calls the
person a socialist? Guess who wants to give the banks more freedom and more power?

AMEN

BS, every one of those who do that are nothing more than RINOs, and not real Republicans, or capitalists.

In a FREE MARKET NOONE has monopoly over anyone else...

The only way bankers get power is by centralization, and this is a SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST doctrine...

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible." (pp.31 and 37, seventh German edition, 1906)(2)

www.marxists.org...

A centralized bank is the fifth plank in the Communist manifesto...

Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.)

www.criminalgovernment.com...

1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3.Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5.Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8.Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.(12)

en.wikipedia.org...

The free education of all childern, and changing all labor to "a combination of education with industrial labor" puts in fact children to do hard labor in summer camps." In Cuba, alongside other socialist/communist countries this is done, and the children have to work under the worst circumstances that you wouldn't even allow your pets to live in... I know because I witnessed it.

Centralization, and giving more power to the state is part of the socialist/communist agenda, and what today are called, among many other names "progressive democrats" in the name of "progress"...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


A central bank is a communistic item? What? So in your bright idea we maintain the privately held central bank that has us time and time again answering to foreign elements? You think this is th way it should be?

It is you who clearly has not a clue of what they speak of. A Nationalized central bank not owned by any private entity is the only way forward.

Your true colours have now been revealed, The free market has no business in matters pertaining to that of privatization of key elements of the Governmental infrastructure!

PAID PLANT FOR THE SCUM IDENTIFIED!

Hook, line, sinker, SUNK!

It seems as if that nutcase Glenn Beck joined the thread

Anyone saying "fee market" works obviously has no real clue about economics.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

In fact the implementation of socialist laws in the U.S. shows the CONTRARY to what you claim...

You obviously cannot read. The only socialism I am pointing out was put in place by the founding fathers. Any new laws you want to rant about have nothing to do with what I posted, thank you. If you can refute that America was founded with socialism built in, then try that.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You seem to be preoccupied with the Leninist and Stalinist implementations of Socialism. It is true that they restricted personal freedom and violently suppressed what they considered counter-revolutionary.
However, this is not what I (or the others) are advocating.

Moreover, you quote Lenin from The State and Revolution (1917). Lenin, obviously, is not Marx. Lenin adapted Marxism for Russia which at the time was a backwards state that did not possess the material conditions necessary for developing socialism.

Marx called for a national bank; there is a massive difference between a private central bank and one that is nationalized, owned collectively by the working class . However, you forget that the manifesto was written in 1848 - the conditions at that time no longer apply to the situation today.

Please read Marx or some of the anarchists like Bakunin - communism or anarchy would allow for the highest potential for self-realization. They cared more about people achieving their potential than any "free" market libertarian.

Yes, Marx does say that say that Communism abolishes Morality and Religion - but not by the coercive power of the State as there is no State in Communism. Nation states would not exist as internationalism plays a huge part in Socialism.

I really don't see any rational objection from you to this other than a conservative knee-jerk reaction.

Hmm, what i have discovered from this thread is people believe what they want to not what is necessarily true. This is why our society is going down in flames. Take for instance Oil, we use the crap like we will never run out when all data points to the logical conclusion that we will one day get to a point where oil is too expensive and society collapses. Of course it doesn't have to be that way but things would have to be done today to move us from that eventual end. However, most people refuse to accept this truth because it means things would have to change. They would rather die than change. They'd rather die than admit they might have been wrong.

Change is an inevitable part of our lives. If you won't change you will suffer, that's just the truth. Holding on to the "founding fathers" (and i put that in quotes cause they sure aren't my daddies..excuse my country talk) and worshiping them won't solve our problems. Our society is very different from the one they lived in. Maybe it's time we found our own wisdom?

I'm also seeing a serious duality argument here. If you think capitalism doesn't work then you must be socialist. I say neither one works because the operate on a false paradigm-that is infinite resources, as there is no such thing both systems are failed.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Indeed. Free markets work just fine. Like a casino. Free exploitation until exhaustion and collapse.

I'm sorry to hear you've never done any research into the effect of free markets. If you did you would have discovered that free markets decrease poverty. Research your facts and come back. You're "opinion" that free markets don't work is wrong. Free markets work to reduce poverty, and that is proven fact. The fact that you think otherwise means you've never done so much as basic Google searches.

The United States is living proof that restricted markets destroy an economy. The past hundred years the USA marketplaces have become entirely restricted, and predictably the economy will collapse as a result. And predictably, poverty will increase. And again, that is because of the destruction of the free market in the United States. Sorry you hate facts so much and never bother to look things up on the internet.

Here is an example Google searches that will probably work for you:
"Study effectiveness "free markets""
"Research effects "free marketplace" "

Instead of being entirely sure I'm wrong and self-deluding yourself with nonsense, I suggest you open your mind to all possibilities and then go out on a fact finding mission regarding how poor people are effected by decreased regulations in the marketplace.

People who think the marketplace was deregulated are wrong as hell. How is hundreds of thousands of NEW regulations a deregulated marketplace? Someone who things a hundred thousands of pages of regulation is called deregulation should commit them self to the nearest mental health facility.

There is no capitalism in the USA, and there is just as obviously no market deregulation in the USA. These things can be measured. Look at the size of the market regulation law books over the years.

Deregulation means less laws. There are more laws than ever, and that is patently obvious without even having to link to any sources. But if you dispute that, I'll gladly correct you really fast. Deregulation is a myth and that is obvious by thinking about it for about three seconds and asking one's self whether there are more or less laws in the business world now vs. one year, two years, five years, ten years, and twenty years ago.

Originally posted by antonia
Hmm, what i have discovered from this thread is people believe what they want to not what is necessarily true. This is why our society is going down in flames. Take for instance Oil, we use the crap like we will never run out when all data points to the logical conclusion that we will one day get to a point where oil is too expensive and society collapses. Of course it doesn't have to be that way but things would have to be done today to move us from that eventual end. However, most people refuse to accept this truth because it means things would have to change. They would rather die than change. They'd rather die than admit they might have been wrong.

Change is an inevitable part of our lives. If you won't change you will suffer, that's just the truth. Holding on to the "founding fathers" (and i put that in quotes cause they sure aren't my daddies..excuse my country talk) and worshiping them won't solve our problems. Our society is very different from the one they lived in. Maybe it's time we found our own wisdom?

I'm also seeing a serious duality argument here. If you think capitalism doesn't work then you must be socialist. I say neither one works because the operate on a false paradigm-that is infinite resources, as there is no such thing both systems are failed.

edit on 10-12-2011 by antonia because: forgot something

edit on 10-12-2011 by antonia because: opps

I found myself nodding my head with each paragraph...

They would rather die than admit somethings wrong, which would mean you are a socialist, unemployed
and against freedom.

Why bother forming an informed opinion when you can condense your arguments
into sound bit sized slogans?

Why can't we be against stupid, corrupted ideas no matter where we find them?

And why can't common sense be predicated with logical deduction?

(rhetorical)

P.S I am not asking you a bunch of questions.

reply to post by seachange


Please, do tell us when such "free" markets actually existed? When was there ever equal opportunity, perfect knowledge of markets or anything like that? The so called "free" market only exists in the imaginations of libertarians, not reality.

Capitalism has created enormous wealth, but it is wealth that is so unequally distributed that it becomes almost worthless (to the vast majority).

Alan Greenspan was a student of the libertarian deity Ayn Rand. Since Regan and Thatcher, the financial industry has been deregulated immensely. How has that worked out for the entire world?

The "free" market libertarians will lead to the death of all of us and the planet.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by mastahunta

conservative ideas are the ones that make sure the corporation and the bankers
are eternally free, thanks to hiding behind the free market, marketing plan

Wanna challenge the banks today? You are deemed a socialist. Guess who calls the
person a socialist? Guess who wants to give the banks more freedom and more power?

AMEN

BS, every one of those who do that are nothing more than RINOs, and not real Republicans, or capitalists.

In a FREE MARKET NOONE has monopoly over anyone else...

"Not real" does not matter, "not rea"l is your way to describe and explain away corruption
that is inherent in mankind. Do you know why people do corrupt things? To make more
money, to gain power, or promote status. "Real or Not Real" does nothing to explain or
change the motives that create what we have here.

Have you noticed that the free market
craze have also ushered in the Chinese century? China is winning because we apply free market
principles to our side of the equation, while they assess a 25% tax on their end. So why would
you advocate practicing free market principles with a country that does not? Our free market approach to
China is giving them a virtual manufacturing monopoly, that is out fault, not theirs.

Further more, do you recall the Trust busting era a century ago?

Monopolies were formed , precisely by free market associations making markets, fixing prices
and leveraged buyouts. In a mall, free market is great, in a two company Meta market that is worth
Billions, free market is an excuse gouge customers.

For a while I was one who thought completely free markets would turn everything around, but now I am much more cautious.

How would we possibly institute it now, in America? After a massive natural disaster? Another debt bubble? Or, most likely, a "terrorist" attack? Look at how the Chicago Boys attempted to institute free markets, notably in Chile, under Pinochet. Granted, they followed Milton Friedman, who himself advised Pinochet, versus the Austrian school. It has never ended well, as in good for the people, when those of the Friedman school implemented free-markets in a fast sweep, ie shock therapy.

I side with Ludwig Von Mises and Hayek, though I am not an economist and only took a single course in economics (micro) - I have simply read and researched the theories and effects myself. The major danger of Friedman's school is the same as with Keynes; government regulation of the monetary supply.

The government should completely stay out of the markets in my view. Capitalistic anarchy. Government involvement or regulation in the markets and monetary supply just leads to more boom-bust cycles and the current situation that we are in.

Originally posted by Konah


The government should completely stay out of the markets in my view. Capitalistic anarchy. Government involvement or regulation in the markets and monetary supply just leads to more boom-bust cycles and the current situation that we are in.

Ok, How does one enforce property rights then? Property cannot exist without a government to enforce it.

reply to post by seachange

The past hundred years the USA marketplaces have become entirely restricted, and predictably the economy will collapse as a result.

No...the economy is now in shambles because thanks to lobbyists buying politicians, the financial industry was deregulated to the point where they could screw everyone over. And it's still happening as is evident by BofA forcing every taxpayer to be liable for $75 trillion of their risky derivatives investments.

Remember Bush's housing speech?



"Loans for everyone...doesn't matter if you can pay them back!! And to you banks, enjoy your given right to repackage those bad loans and sell them as AAA-rated investments...happy happy happy!!"

That pretty much sums it up. Every president and congress ever since Reagan came to power systematically deregulated the financial industry to the point where they can screw the entire rest of the people. Look at Reagan's first speech, and listen to who tells the PRESIDENT to "wrap it up"...WALL STREET!!

Bureaucratic regulations sure need to be streamlined in a lot of cases, but claiming regulation is the downfall of the economy is nuts. Without it, the environment would be even more destroyed than now, child labour would be ok (and is ok according to people like Perry/Bachmann), and banks could screw everyone even more. They already had most crucial regulations removed, and now look what that achieved...and then imagine how it would be without any regulations at all. INSANITY!!

The free market isn't beneficial to 99.9% of the population and will only result in more income inequality.

reply to post by MrXYZ


An act of Congress would require the taxpayer to be on the hook but in an event like this we will own BoA lock, stock and barrel and would subject them to a seizure of any and all assets, properties, holdings if they can't pay it back!

The DREAM Act of 05 was an admirable attempt for those who couldn't afford a home be amongst the rolls of homeowners is one of the few 43 policies that I was actually for but when the people who got blacked out on for daring to read or question a thing coupled with the unregulation of this aspect of the market that when they signed the loan deal were paying 5% in interest that doubled to 10% after a year and tripled to 30% when the Liper Reset meaning a couple who was budgeting a $500 a month mortgage payment suddenly became $3,000 a month caused many to go underwater. Fraudulent practices courtesy of the lenders is what caused that bubble to burst! When after 3 years your mortgage is north of 6 times as much as you'd originally budgeted for will cause many to go underwater and directly led to the crash of the housing market! All, spearheaded by systematic deregulation!

As long as you had a definitive income coming in while maintaining a job you could qualify for a home was the requirements but when the banks stuck their 2 cents in it caused the chaos.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

An act of Congress would require the taxpayer to be on the hook but in an event like this we will own BoA lock, stock and barrel and would subject them to a seizure of any and all assets, properties, holdings if they can't pay it back!

The DREAM Act of 05 was an admirable attempt and one of the few 43 policies that I was actually for but when the people who got blacked out on for daring to read or question a thing coupled with the unregulation of this aspect of the market that when they signed the loan deal were paying 5% in interest that doubled to 10% after a year and tripled to 30% when the Liper Reset meaning a couple who was budgeting a $500 a month mortgage payment suddenly became $3,000 a month caused many to go underwater. Fraudulent practices courtesy of the lenders is what caused that bubble to burst! When after 3 years your mortgage is north of 6 times as much as you'd originally budgeted for will cause many to go underwater and directly led to the crash of the housing market! All, spearheaded by systematic deregulation!

edit on 10-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

They're using 50:1 leverage...good luck trying to get those assets back

Just look at MF Global, and read up on how little the creditors get back

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

A central bank is a communistic item? What? So in your bright idea we maintain the privately held central bank that has us time and time again answering to foreign elements? You think this is th way it should be?

It is you who clearly has not a clue of what they speak of. A Nationalized central bank not owned by any private entity is the only way forward.

Your true colours have now been revealed, The free market has no business in matters pertaining to that of privatization of key elements of the Governmental infrastructure!

PAID PLANT FOR THE SCUM IDENTIFIED!

Hook, line, sinker, SUNK!

edit on 10-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Central Banking is Statist. Statism is usually associated with communism and socialism, but in the Hegelian world, it is also a tool of the abusers of Capitalism. Where the communists on the left use the market forces on the right, we call it a public/private partnership. This model is used extensively in the UN.


I highly recommend reading the books of Antony Sutton. He has written many books exposing Skull and Bones, CFR, Tri-laterals, the NWO in general, the apparatus of the Hegelian system. He exposed the Bush and Harriman family involvement in financing Hitler. He exposes the Rockefeller support of the Bolsheviks. It's a great study.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Why do you think the banks won't allow many to refi their mortgage for? Because many of these banks sold, resold and sold again many of these mortgages meaning after say, 3 yrs, you didn't know who owned your mortgage and were paying a lender who had no legal right to accept money to begin with.

Quite a few have stopped paying the mortgage to a bank that no longer holds nor controls the original mortgage agreement as legally speaking if your lender cannot find the original loan application and approval letter or the payment agreement on your mortgage you legally are not held to pay that back. Without those 3 documents you are to not pay them!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Europa - Privately owned Central bank and look at all of the mess it's causing! - At least $100 Trillion by some estimates has been thrown at the problem and the problem still persists like a cancer. It only proves one thing and one thing only, That those douchewads are getting richer while we get poorer! They've found the perfect avenue to "scare money out of Govt" and it is working better then they expected so what incentive do they have to change their ways? Hell, it's easier then holding down a job.
Norway - A nationally owned and controlled central bank with no external debt!
Iceland - A nationally owned a controlled central bank who's a target of an attack by the banksters!

See the problem?

Get off your highhorse and get back to reality if you think a nationalized central bank is wrong. You seriously need to rethink your stance on this.

Who would you rather payback, some private douchewad with an agenda or the Govt itself? There is no third option!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


It's not a partnership if the public corporations get to keep all profit while being allowed to offset losses by forcing taxpayers to come up for them

reply to post by MrXYZ


To add, that the Federal Reserve will not finance a thing in this nation unless we give up concessions to them like, ending sovereignty, turning over total and blind control to them.