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

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Europa - Privately owned Central bank and look at all of the mess it's causing!
Norway - A nationally owned and controlled central bank with no external debt!

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 th
rd option!

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

Well, some of our Founding Fathers seemed to agree with me about Central Banking. Let's see who was the one who warned us....oh yah it was Thomas Jefferson.

Here is what Jefferson said, and surprise the Fed is exactly that which he describes, a private Centralized banking system controlling our money supply.
The key here is central....as no matter if it is private or public, someone will always want to control it.

The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.

www.phnet.fi...


And did I not just tell you that it is the public/private partnerships which utilize both the private and public central banking for control?

Originally posted by lrak2
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.

edit on 10-12-2011 by lrak2 because: Formatting

edit on 10-12-2011 by lrak2 because: spelling

You're full of it! You should go back and re read the Communist Manifesto and any other communist works. It seems that you focused on religion and morality and not economics.
In any case, Marxism leaves no room for individual development. This is why the Soviet Union failed. It killed individual incentive and spirit and killed individual liberty and killed the economy too. Marxism is all about collectivism.
Who did collectivism? Mussolini.
Statisnm collectivism, communism, all are enemies of personal liberty and the death of the SOUL!

Originally posted by lrak2
For Marx, Communism is a stateless, classless society characterized by abundance. The workers control the means of production and goods are produced for social need, not profit.

Mr. Karl Marx, is a jewish middle class born into a wealthy family. He was an economist, and a philosopher.

There was nothing further from Mr. Karl Marx mind, than "freedom" ...

Originally posted by lrak2
The poster above claims that the Rich want Communism - what utter nonsense. Please get your information on radical left ideology from places other than Fox News. The Libertarian conception of the "free-market" is Utopian and has never existed.

Marx cared more about liberty than any of you "free-market" libertarians.

The only stupid claim, is this ignorant rhetoric by people who haven't even bothered to read their 10th grade history lessonl.

He's born into a wealthy jewish family, and cared more about money and wealth ... than anything else. He's ideology was about wealth, and it's been bombarded into your ignorant brain by "propagandaist", who want you to think that this Karl Marx cared about gentiles ...

Now there is an utter nonsense, if there ever was one ..

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by lrak2
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.

edit on 10-12-2011 by lrak2 because: Formatting

edit on 10-12-2011 by lrak2 because: spelling

You're full of it! You should go back and re read the Communist Manifesto and any other communist works. It seems that you focused on religion and morality and not economics.
In any case, Marxism leaves no room for individual development. This is why the Soviet Union failed. It killed individual incentive and spirit and killed individual liberty and killed the economy too. Marxism is all about collectivism.
Who did collectivism? Mussolini.
Statisnm collectivism, communism, all are enemies of personal liberty and the death of the SOUL!

again... please tell us where these communists are?

If it so bad, show us.

See, you are making a straw man...

The real problem is corporatism, which effected by private individuals buying the government and
is agency. But you keep looking for communist that will never come. Literally people like you have been
shouting the same thing since the 30's, yet the only thing that has increased in power is the corporation, a
private institution.

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by bjarneorn

The problem is, people are screaming for communism or socialism ... without understanding why. They have this notion that communism is something good and noble, and scream for it, without having bothered to read the "manifesto" to know what it is about.

The problem is actually people like you that do not understand either word and that they are actually different and communism does not have a manifesto. Men have manifestos.

Why don't you go and educate yourself? Doesn't it hurt to be so ignorant, and then claim to be a commie ... I mean, what is it about communism that you like so much? 90% of the communist values, is what has brought your country to it's knees ... but you've been listening to the "bankers" propaganda so much, that you have no clue that they've been making all western societies "socialistic" for decades.

They've brought your country to it's knees ... taken away your homes, and now these same bankers are saying they need to take away your freedom ...

I mean ... wow ... in a way I can understand why you "gentiles" need to be institutionalized (as in freedoms taken away) ... you have no thought process of your own. I mean, what on earth do you think freedom has to do with your own prosperety ... you have to be really retarded dude, not to understand that by taking away the freedom from the public, the "wealthy" are merely ensuring their own stature ... not yours.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Did you even spare a minute to try and actually understand what I wrote?
You say I didn't talk about economics. That's true, but only because the person I was replying to did not ask about it. What killed the Soviet economy? It was a bureaucratic structure, the inefficiencies of central planning, and the need to keep up with an arms race started by the U.S. under Regan and certain other reasons.

Again and again you take the Soviet Union as an example of what I support. Under socialism, the means of production are collectively owned by the working class and production is geared towards social need, not profit. Please read up on the Paris Commune of 1871 and Anarchist Catalonia – these are examples of workers self-management.

The Soviet Union followed a model of State Capitalism. China also follows an authoritarian state capitalist model. Why do you think that ultra-capitalists so often praise China?

Please make sure you are familiar with Socialist/Marxist/Anarchist theory before you waste time, both yours and mine, shouting about “collectivism” and “liberty”.

We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality – Mikhail Bakunin

reply to post by bjarneorn


bjarneorn, ad hominem is the last resort of those who do not really have anything of importance of say.
Marx was indeed born into a wealthy, middle class family. What exactly is your point?
Throughout most of his life, he was living in near poverty and had to rely on his friend Engels for financial support.
It seems it is not me who needs a history lesson.

Originally posted by lrak2

The Soviet Union followed a model of State Capitalism. China also follows an authoritarian state capitalist model. Why do you think that ultra-capitalists so often praise China?

I mean wow are you serious?

What on earth is wrong with you guys ... did your momma drop you on your heads when you were infants? it sure sounds like it.

You watch TV, and they say "don't demonstrate" and what do you do? ... wow ...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... instead of sitting there, go live in these countries. Go live in China, or go live in Russia. Russia is a living example of "communism", and you can sit and speculate about it from left to right and deny yourself to hell and back, "it wasn't, it wasn't" ... it's really pathetic.

China WAS communism, in it's Mao time. Every company in China, was a government company ... there were no private corporations ... of any nature. Everyone had a bycicle and nobody had anything to eat ... people were starving from left to right.

Deng Xiao Ping brought China OUT of this communist dream HELL you desire so much. He allowed individuals to start their own business, and what the Chinese did is that they slowly started to adapt the "Hong Kong" method ... in Hong Kong, they put their own factories in "China", to produce cheaper ... but when the market was given "free" in China, everyone opened their own company and everyone is selling, making food ... this is what has given China it's current chance. In China, nobody has to have a College degree ... all they need is to be able to do it, and have some start capital ... that is capitalism ... that is what capitalism means. That is what "Gorbatchev" wanted, but Yeltsin took out of his hands ... and instead, the riches of the Soviet Union ended up in the hands of the "Ogliarch", which I suggest you should look up.

And now, everyone is trying to tell you that the reason for "China's" enormous advances are "communism". Which is BULLCRAP ... it's the "free market", that is the reason for China's miracle.

Go to China ... you can build your own mobile, on a subway ... people are building their own computers, mobiles, MP3 players ... look alikes, etc. .... the free market is blooming in China ... and the Chinese are living the "American Dream" ... and in China, all the entrepreneurs are paranoid that China may take up it's "communism" again ... they can't sleep from fear that their new found freedom will be taken away from them.

But unlike the Chinese ... you are just fighting to have the "Ogliarch" have all the riches ... and make your children poor. Your dream is probably to own a "bycicle" ... and one pair of shoes, one shirt and wear the same shirt every day. So that the rich "Ogliarch" can live their dream of "bankers" ... with their "national" bank, where every penny the citizen "creates" is put in "their" bank ... and they'll give you "just enough" to eat.

Hell ... you deserve it.

Originally posted by lrak2
Throughout most of his life, he was living in near poverty and had to rely on his friend Engels for financial support.
It seems it is not me who needs a history lesson.

Ahemm ... yeah, sure. I won't argue the part where he lived in "near" poverty ... I'll just voice my "skepticism", and point out that his friend "engels" is a very convenient help when in times of needs ... to put it more logically, in my personal point of view (and it's only my personal point of view), the man is a fake ... and he was making a spectacle of living near poverty, always having some financial support when needed ... unlike the "true" poor people of this world.

The point I am making, is to have people "lookup" the connection between Karl Marx's birth place, his youth ... where he had most of his ideas from. Who were at the "heart" of the communism in the "Soviet Union", and which part actually "fled" to the US of A, during the creation of the Soviet Union and why. And who controls the banks.

There is a very big red line of thread between all these things ...

reply to post by bjarneorn


Please tell me you didn't just call China a free market economy

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

Please tell me you didn't just call China a free market economy

Hell no, go live there for a while ... don't watch it on TV. Do you have the guts, to actually go and educate yourself about it, instead of listening to the "bankers" propaganda on TV?

You'll learn something ...

reply to post by bjarneorn


I’m well aware of Xiaoping and his reforms. If you had bothered to read, I wrote that China also follows an authoritarian state capitalist model. That is the present tense. If you still don’t understand, I was describing China today.
Russia is what it is today because of the “shock therapy” and other neoliberal economic ideas championed by the libertarian Milton Friedman.
Undoubtedly, the lives of millions of Chinese have been improved, which is very good. But, Is China today is an example of the “free” market for you? China with its massive exploitation, extensive environmental destruction and extreme corruption? With everything either guided or enforced by a repressive authoritarian regime?
Socialism in the 20th century was a disaster and I never supported it in anyway. Nevertheless, you may keep using your straw man argument.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

Please tell me you didn't just call China a free market economy

Amazing, isn't it? I thought he was being sarcastic at first.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

Please tell me you didn't just call China a free market economy

Hell no, go live there for a while ... don't watch it on TV. Do you have the guts, to actually go and educate yourself about it, instead of listening to the "bankers" propaganda on TV?

You'll learn something ...

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

I lived in Hong Kong for 1.5 years, and spent 6mo in Shanghai after that

To claim China is a free market economy is insanity...

Obama wants to transform America alright.

He wants to tear it down in rebuild it in the likeness of his cronies in Venezuela or Cuba.

Not gonna happen. Not on my watch.

Originally posted by Misoir
It was not the Federal government that settled the prairies and farmed them under the hot sun; it was not the Federal government that worked the factories to grow our economy, the Federal government when it interfered in those areas only made things worse, not better.

Perhaps for a Progressive such as yourself you see that only the Feds can be a force for good because it was they who took us into countless wars, gave us affirmative action, the New Deal, Great Society, began deconstructing our sovereignty, and brought in hoards of immigrants from the third world destroying our melting pot. Maybe it is because the Federal government employes and/or subsidizes your voting base, so any cut to that is a cut to your bought off allies.

A few radical potheads do not know more than brave men who fought a revolution against an empire, much like the one you are running.

"....and brought in hoards of immigrants from the third world destroying our melting pot."

Do you know the reason why this country was called a melting pot? Because immigrants from all over the world migrated to America, and their culture's all melted together here. So, I'm incredibly curious where your logic is coming from that "immigrants are destroying our melting pot".

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

You're applying cultural norms from back then to today, they were human. If you were alive then, you'd have thought nothing of it I'm sure. The British had slaves, and marginalized women as well. The founders however had the courage to fight against impossible odds for their freedom. They formed the document our country is based on, and their system paved the way for abolishing of slavery, and women's rights. For a society only a couple hundred years old, our culture became mostly fair and tolerant very quickly. Now, all people are protected under the Constitution, regardless of race or gender.

I love logic like this. "Hey, ______ was OK/not as bad back then because that's just the way they did things."

Same logic as:

Hey, terrorism is OK because that's just the way we wage war these days.

Hey, bankers and corporations constantly lying and stealing is OK because that's just the way business is done these days.

Hey, raping your mom is OK because that's just the way things are done these days.

Originally posted by SirTFiedSkeptic

Click here for more information.

OK, I'll rephrase it so I don't call 90% of ATSers morons, even though these 22 pages of comments agreeing with a BS, blatantly misquoted, LIAR of an OP speak otherwise.

PEOPLE, THE OP IS LYING! HE IS A LIAR AND THERE IS MOST CERTAINLY A CONFLAGRATION IN HIS PANTS. OBAMA DID NOT EVEN REMOTELY SAY WHAT THE OP CLAIMS!

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
So my posts about how America was founded with and exists on a wonderful socialist infrastructure is off topic now? Accusing me of stealing wifi because I drive on roads is on topic?
Socialism works. Socialism works in America.
Everyone posting in this thread right now is enjoying the benefits of that.

Nothing to do with stealing wifi.

What he said. Democratic, well-regulated, free-market socialism works, and works very well. Just ask Swedes and Danes for example- their quality of life and personal happiness always tops every survey, and they are some of the most socialist (non-communist) people in the world. But the CEOs of their corporations are not allowed to get insanely wealthy at the expense of the workers, and they actually have to pay their fair share of taxes to help support the country that helps support them by giving them land to work, roads to drive on, clean water to drink, healthcare, military and police protection, fire protection, etc., etc., so obviously every American businessperson will tell you that socialism doesn't work. Although for the life of me I can never understand why so many people still believe anything out of a merchant's mouth, even knowing thousands of years of history. The merchant class and their greed is the cause of every evil in this world, imho.