On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 15:18, John Pedersen wrote:
> In my opinion, you've got that backwards:
It seems that way at first. But that's just a side-effect of the size
of government.
Most businesses are merely trying to circumvent the controls or
regulation the government placed on them in the first place. Or to
secure contracts for so-called "privatization" (which is really the
facist economic model -- extremely effective for the first 20 years or
so).
In the case of Democrats, recent history shows they like to reserve
controls for select few partners, forcing others with endless
regulation. The Republicans are more open about to all businesses,
offer way too many government contracts, which only increase the
beuracracy as well (not as much, but still significantly).
> it's business controlling government.
If the government did not control and regulate so much, there would be
less for private industry to lobby and control. The problem is
circular. The only key is to reduce the regulation, which results in
_both_ being reduced.
> Those with billions of dollars also control the media,
The "wealthy," not to be confused with the "income earners." The former
already has money that not covered under income tax (and any increase is
through capital gains). The latter is hit by _both_ income taxes _and_
capital gains on the limited investments they can and do make.
Unfortunately, the "popular media" likes to label them _all_ "rich,"
using the "wealthy" as the poster child to increase taxes on the "income
earners." Sadly enough, they are only preventing the middle class from
funding investments, and the lower class from joining the middle.
> and they pretty much decide who runs, and how successful they are.
To a point. Again, the "wealthy" can do a lot. But remember it
_always_ begins with the politicians. The more politicians you have,
the more money can influence them.
The "wealthy" are _not_ "above the law." Yes, they can bend it, but
they are not above it. The way around that "limitation" in a capitalist
society is to enact more regulation and control. Because politicians
_are_ "above the law."
That's why NAFTA and other trade agreements _should_ be read. They are
actually _more_ regulation and _specific_ agreements for _specific_
companies. It's funny to see this.
The Gore-Perot debate is proof that the US media will side with people
who seem "sincere," even though it's 100% garbage. Perot was 100%
correct when he was talking about the issues with the agreement. After
that debate I went and read the bill -- damn I was shocked!
> If you're in doubt about whether global mega-bankers, or politicians, are
> in control, take a look at the so-called free-trade issue that has
> been destroying USA for many years.
Agreed. The amount of control outside the US is a primary issue. The
Federal Reserve is a prime example -- it's primarily held by British
interests. It's an institution of privilege.
The same arguments the Libertarians are making now are the similar to
the arguments Andrew Jackson made over a century and a half-ago. It
wasn't until early in the 20th Century that the Federal Reserve would
gain control, and FDR assigned its monopoly power in 1933 -- after 4
years of a depressing economy.
The question is would our country be better or worse had the Fed come
about then? It is an interesting debate. Especially given the first
modern Republican administration in Lincoln, and the debate over states
rights that came to a head in the civil war. Others would argue that
the technology of the 20th century was funded by the bank, while others
would state that it allowed the control to happen.
Not coincidentally, the time of Jackson is when the greatest political
party change in the history of the US (outside of the demise of the
Federalists) occurred. First the split of the Jeffersonian Republicans
(aka the Democratic Republicans) into the Democrats and Whigs, and then
the next split of the Democrats into the current Democrat and Republican
party. The parties are very much alike. And have a monopoly on
campaign funds thanx to the "community scare" of the '50s (which brought
about other BS, 100% NON-spiritual, changes like "In God We Trust" and
"Under God").
Unfortunately, the mindless aspects of the TV media were not here.
Unlike print and radio, where the former has no vocal emphasis and the
latter has no pictures -- the TV media covers all 3 senses, which allows
it to say one thing, and mean another that can avert and completely
distort facts while not lying.
Jackson was also the first president to formally suggest doing away with
the Electoral College.
> Democrat or Republican, makes zero difference--the "trade" deficit
> grows and grows and grows.
Agreed. Neither will do anything about it either.
> Bankers and corporate elites get richer, everybody else loses.
Agreed. The monopoly the Federal Reserve has had on the amount of cash
in this country is at the heart. People say they are needed for the
money multiplier -- but I doubt it is worth it. I've been reading a lot
on Andrew as of late.
I was going to omit my vote this Presidental Election, but the
Libertarians have put up a candidate that I like (never thought much of
Harry Browne prior).
> (I put quotes on "trade" because it isn't trade--it's simply USA
> buying stuff with paper, and the Chinese a) hoarding the paper so they
> can destroy us with it at will, and b) with some of it, they are
> buying the USA.)
Actually, the British own quite a bit of us, as well as some of China
(especially the off-shore provinces), despite the red revolution. I'm
not trying to demonize the British, but they are the epitome of what we
are becoming. We already control much of Japan (despite the common view
that it is the opposite).
The fact that China remains communist is not so silly of a notion. They
act like they wish to join the G8, but it may not come to pass because
of the external control and regulation aspect. China does not respect
IP, which is a major issue, but the G8 has less control to enforce it
than they believe.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Communities don't have rights. Only individuals in the community have rights. ... That idea of community rights is firmly rooted in the 'Communist Manifesto.'" -- Michael Badnarik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:56:10 EDT