Quote :

" You report that Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley are using their influence over newly established derivatives clearinghouses to line their own pockets by suppressing competition (“A Secretive Banking Elite Rules Trading in Derivatives,” Dec. 12). Now that’s a shocker! Who would have dreamed that these politically connected Wall Street behemoths, after being bailed out with taxpayer money, would now be able to rig – for their own monopolistic advantages – the operation of the clearinghouses that our very own, democratically elected government engineered into existence in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown? Surely you’re correct to describe this startling phenomenon as an “irony.” What bad luck. Sincerely, Donald J. Boudreaux"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/business/12advantage.html

12/12/2010 4:23:22 PM

The saddest thing of all that there is such a small minority of "journalist" in the MSM that are out there uncovering this shit. Maybe a better question would be, if there were more and they were regularly doing it, would the public even care?

12/12/2010 4:42:12 PM

I think most are very undereducated when it comes to the functions of the banking system. A very low percentage of people will be able to describe fractional reserve banking, much less the consequences of such a scheme. At this point, banks and government are, for all intents and purposes, a single entity, working in tandem to skim as much wealth as possible from the middle and lower classes, while adding absolutely no production value to the economy themselves.

[Edited on December 12, 2010 at 5:22 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2010 5:21:22 PM

^ That's what we've been saying this whole time.

12/12/2010 5:46:48 PM

the thing about pure capitalism is that E V E R T H I N G is for sale. every motherfucking goddammn thing, including your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

in its purest form, it is as anti-democratic as communism and totalitarian facism/monarchy.

Democracy has to be the end game. the free flow of capital, ideas, and resources have to be a tool for democractic ends, otherwise all this is just a pathology.

it is a long hard battle that humankind is fighting, but we will get it right eventually.

12/12/2010 6:18:44 PM

^did you sell the Y?

12/12/2010 6:39:10 PM

for five dollars and a bucket of spit

12/12/2010 6:51:25 PM

I think some people imagine "capitalism" as being pure survival of the fittest, with no protection by law and an absence of any sort of rights guarantor. I don't see it that way. In real, free market capitalism, rights are protected, and corporations are not allowed free reign to harm anyone they like. That's what I support. You can have a market where the government doesn't intervene directly, and doesn't pick winners and losers. We don't have to accept this false choice between crony capitalism and state control over the economy.

Quote :

"Democracy has to be the end game. the free flow of capital, ideas, and resources have to be a tool for democractic ends, otherwise all this is just a pathology."

Democracy isn't new, and it isn't the end game. The superior form of government is a Republic, which is what the Constitution sets up. Democracy is, literally, mob rule. If the Christian rednecks fuck like rabbits and have a shit ton of babies, and the enlightened liberals don't, the former will guide policy for the next generation. In a Republic, it doesn't have to be that way. It takes far more support to pass sweeping legislation on the federal level.

[Edited on December 12, 2010 at 7:10 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2010 7:07:26 PM

^^^^ I prefer my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to be mine to sell or never sell as I see fit, compared to the democratic system taking my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness without appeal just because for this exact moment 51% of my fellow citizens feel like it.

The purpose of Democracy is to secure our Liberty, not the other way around. In-so-far as Democracy becomes a hindrance to this goal, it must be curtailed.

[Edited on December 12, 2010 at 7:10 PM. Reason : ^ quite right]

Anyone here give any thoughts to the proposed constitutional amendment allowing a super-majority of state legislatures to repeal federal legislation?

[Edited on December 12, 2010 at 7:11 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/12/2010 7:07:59 PM

^^ Democracy and the US’s form of government are colloquially used interchangeably.

A republic is a subset of a democracy anyway.

Quote :

"The purpose of Democracy is to secure our Liberty, not the other way around. In-so-far as Democracy becomes a hindrance to this goal, it must be curtailed. "

All forms of government are a hindrance to this goal. And the purpose of Democracy isn’t to secure “our” liberty, i’m not sure how you arrived at this conclusion, unless you’re trying to say you think the purpose of democracy SHOULD be to secure liberty? Because that’s nearly a paradoxical statement, considering the nature of government.

The purpose of gov. has always been to maintain order, stability, and progress, or some combination thereof, at the expense of “Liberty". Government types from communism to the democracy of the ancient Greeks achieve this goal to varying degrees.

The problem with any form of government is that powerful entities are eventually going to collude, or they’re going to clash, the trick is making either outcome work for the population at large. Government, banks, and corporations are the 3 most powerful entities above "the people,” and the deals they work out don’t always benefit us, as the OP demonstrates.

12/12/2010 7:27:04 PM

Quote :

"In realtheoretical, free market capitalism, rights are protected, and corporations are not allowed free reign to harm anyone they like."

fixed

You argue that with a true free market capitalistic system, no entity is allowed free reign to harm others simply for the sake of profit. But right now we are closer to this wild west scenario you describe moreso than at any other time in the past 80 or so years and we're worse off because of it. What way do you propose to impose this ideal free market society? Is that not a job that only the government can do?

Don't confuse me for thinking the government is doing a fine job. I think that 99% of politicians should be tossed out on their asses or tossed in jail. But what other entity than government is large enough to take on these powerful forces? That's what I don't understand with libertarians. If there is no way for people themselves to be a powerful force, then who will be there to stop these bad influences which we both seem to agree exist?

[Edited on December 12, 2010 at 10:08 PM. Reason : grammars]

12/12/2010 10:06:07 PM

Quote :

"You argue that with a true free market capitalistic system, no entity is allowed free reign to harm others simply for the sake of profit. But right now we are closer to this wild west scenario you describe moreso than at any other time in the past 80 or so years and we're worse off because of it. What way do you propose to impose this ideal free market society? Is that not a job that only the government can do?"

We have nothing close to free market capitalism. We have corporatism, where government and business operate for the benefit of each other. I think we're getting into a game of semantics here. If the government is propping up the banks, and they're the ones getting absurdly rich by shifting around derivatives, how is that that free market capitalism? The banks should have had to deal with the consequences of their risky behavior. Instead, risk (the free market counter to greed) was removed by the government, allowing them to get away with this bullshit.

If we really had a government that protected rights, we wouldn't have a secretive council deciding how much money is created, and bankers that perpetrated fraud would be locked up, not given record bonuses. Of course, we have something very different than a government that protects rights. Politicians cast a blind eye to the wrongdoings that occur behind the scenes, and many times they benefit directly from those wrongdoings.

[Edited on December 13, 2010 at 12:50 AM. Reason : ]

12/13/2010 12:40:02 AM

Quote :

"Democracy and the US’s form of government are colloquially used interchangeably."

While true, it is quite odd. What shall we call the form of government found in Canada, France, or Russia? It seems silly for "Democracy" to have the definition of "whatever form of government the speaker likes" when it is clearly unclear what form of government the speaker likes.

12/13/2010 1:32:49 AM

Quote :

"Anyone here give any thoughts to the proposed constitutional amendment allowing a super-majority of state legislatures to repeal federal legislation? "

Don't we essentially already have this in the constitutional amendment process? 2/3rds of the states can force congress to convene for an amendment convention.

Quote :

"But right now we are closer to this wild west scenario you describe moreso than at any other time in the past 80 or so years and we're worse off because of it."

What? What has occurred in he past 10 years that makes you think that we are closer to the ideal levels of freedom than we were 80 years ago? Don't confuse government intervention or lack thereof for the few as freedom for all. As I said way back when we were discussing political contributions by candidates, the problem isn't that Wal-Mart et al spend billions of dollars to buy politicians and elections, it's that the politicians have enough power and controls to make it worth spending billions to control them.

12/13/2010 7:54:33 AM

Quote :

"Four more years of cronyism! Nepotism! Rascalism! Of service to the interests!"

12/13/2010 8:32:51 AM

Quote :

"it's that the politicians have enough power and controls to make it worth spending billions to control them."

The only way to isolate a politician from the influence of money is to render him/her entirely powerless. Also, I don't necessarily think that taking power away from politicians would reduce the influence of special interests.

It's like saying "The solution to police corruption is to legalize the crimes that criminals bribe their way out of".

12/13/2010 9:22:53 AM

RAWR RAWR RAWR FREE MARKET EVIL!!!! *gives trillions in tax payer money to corporations*

12/13/2010 9:30:13 AM

^^ Well, the solution to the corrupting influences of prohibition turned out to be repealing prohibition.

Quote :

"The only way to isolate a politician from the influence of money is to render him/her entirely powerless. "

Not quite. A better way is to get a different group of people, make them beholden to a different set of special interests, and then make a rule that the two groups must agree before they can make law. This was why we had the Senate, a body that was beholden to state legislatures, not the electorate, and therefore faced a radically different set of special interest groups which vehemently opposed the special interests which dominated the House for over a century. I suspect a good idea would be to return this form of power checking power arrangement. Perhaps Supreme Court Judges should be chosen directly by the state governments?

Quote :

"Don't we essentially already have this in the constitutional amendment process? 2/3rds of the states can force congress to convene for an amendment convention."

No, because we don't want to make these kinds of laws illegal, we just want to repeal this particular law.

12/13/2010 9:58:18 AM

Quote :

"While true, it is quite odd. What shall we call the form of government found in Canada, France, or Russia? It seems silly for "Democracy" to have the definition of "whatever form of government the speaker likes" when it is clearly unclear what form of government the speaker likes"

wut?

You seem to be on some strange weird bents lately. Have you suffered a stroke?

Canada and France are refered to as Democracies. in fact I've never heard them refered to as anything but a democracy.

russia is more of an oligarchy.

12/13/2010 11:28:03 AM

^^State legislatures aren't necessarily beholden to different, or better interests.

[Edited on December 13, 2010 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ^^]

12/13/2010 11:29:31 AM

Quote :

"Crony Capitalism"

is there another kind?

12/13/2010 11:35:42 AM

^^ In theory, whether they are better or worse is irrelevant, as long as they are different. It just didn't stick, because while they were different, for a few decades their interests coincided and managed to break the check.

^^^ My point was simple. While all the countries (Canada, France, U.S., Russia) are Democracies, when someone yells Democracy without qualifications it is not sensible to assume they mean democracy as practiced in the U.S. as implied by your words "Democracy and the US’s form of government are colloquially used interchangeably." ssjamind called for more Democracy, we proclaim even more democracy would be harmful, and you proclaim that all he means by more democracy is the U.S. style of government.

12/13/2010 11:53:39 AM

bttt

9/29/2011 11:33:46 PM

I think Occupy Wall St has shown that there exists out there a population mostly consisting of youth that believes in economic justice and uses social networking to communicate. A fuck the rich mentality.

9/29/2011 11:37:08 PM

Flashmobs did it first

9/30/2011 9:18:46 AM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/crony-capitalism-737-million-green-jobs-loan-given-nancy-pelosis-brother-law_594593.html

9/30/2011 9:45:32 AM

Quote :

"Democracy isn't new, and it isn't the end game. The superior form of government is a Republic, which is what the Constitution sets up. Democracy is, literally, mob rule. If the Christian rednecks fuck like rabbits and have a shit ton of babies, and the enlightened liberals don't, the former will guide policy for the next generation. In a Republic, it doesn't have to be that way. It takes far more support to pass sweeping legislation on the federal level."

So, um, how do we choose the representatives for a republican government in the best way?

10/3/2011 3:16:38 PM