DeElitification Is What We Need In This Country
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I'm all for it, though.
The power structure in this country is top down, and not bottom up.
It is based on absolute corruption, deception, and abuse of the consent of the governed.
It all needs to change,
but sadly the type of change most envision is like changing the brand of band aid on a gaping cancerous and gangrenous flesh wound.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
the second video, the new Megan McCain book .... that was great,
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
I'll have to check it I missed that one.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
it continues to amaze me that a stock market broker says stuff like this. hypocritical double standards at their finest.
how do you think those "at the top" get the money to stay on top. yup, thanks drifting. now we're going to buy another candidate. here's a $100 dividend for you, go buy yourself something nice and post on the pit about how the elite are screwing the world. just don't mess with our cash flow. there's a good soldier.
amazing. and you keep saying WE have our heads in the sand.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I really don't think you grasp the difference between players in a rigged game, and the men behind the scenes, The House if you will, that has CREATED the rigged game.
If i choose to put my money (which is a much smaller sum than you seem to think it is, buddy) in the stock market, that is my choice in a "free" market.
However, when the top 1% of the world meet in secret to create something as devious as the "Federal" "Reserve" which effectively guarantees them against ALL losses, and forces YOU and ME to pay for those losses, there is a VERY REAL PROBLEM with the system.
I don't give one flying fuck who invests in what, or which companies survive and which go under. That is the market at work.
What i care about, and care passionately about, is the fact that the game is NOT played on a level playing field.
The system, which was designed by JP Morgan, John D Rockefeller, Paul Warburg and their cronies (the "Money Trust", the masters of the universe), is designed specifically to ensure that the largest and RISKIEST bankers continue to make the most money, because THEY are the ones that are GUARANTEED AGAINST FAILURE by a system that THEY CREATED.
THAT is the problem with capitalism.
It has been utterly perverted.
I suggest you buy yourself a copy of the book, The Creature From Jekyll Island, and get started reading it. Maybe then you will have a better appreciation for who the REAL criminals in this country are, instead of constantly accusing me of being some elitist ass-raping shit bag, which I am anything but.
You need to understand that the absolute largest perversion of our free market system stems directly from the Federal Reserve, which serves to continually rob both you and I of our wealth through the massive hidden tax of inflation, and which serves to solidify the positions of the elite at the tip top of the pyramid by guaranteeing them against losses.
Trust me when i say my investments are not what is keeping you down.
:rolleyes:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i see. it's all the federal reserve and the companies and people buying influence with YOUR money should be totally absolved? they have nothing to do with prohibitin a level playing field right?
so do away with the fed reserve. guess what will happen? a few dudes will get richer than shit from the stock market again, just as morgan and chase and them did. and what are they going to do? use their money to buy politicians and get a new fed reserve to benefit them again. why? because absolute power and money corrupt absolutely. that is what capitalism does... without any checks on the free market, somebody will ALWAYS get more than others and enough leverage to rig the game to their benefit, because nobody can stop them. it's inevitable. even if you allow that morgan and chase conspired for this, a new conspiracy will arise to accomplish the same result. the free market will not stop or correct elitism, it encourages it. it's a dog eat dog system, survival of the fittest. and the super elite will survive. no one can take them down.
Great.
So whats your suggestion, exactly?
Abolishing the fed, putting a permanent congressional cap on the oustanding amount of currency and informing the populace of the importance of maintaining this policy sounds like a good start to me.
Some serious economic thinktanks that serve to formulate a responsible policy for banking regulation to ensure that the secondary credit market doesn't get wildly speculative like it has in the past seems like a fair way to go about this.
But you tell me,
what would YOU rather see?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i'll formulate my thoughts and put them here. but right now, i'm going for sushi.
sushi.
something we can agree on.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
sushi? you ELITIST!!!!
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Hey catch, how was the sushi?
GodDAMN i got drunk last night.
Not even funny.
Still curious what your ideas are,
since you seem to agree with me about parts of the problem,
but you disagree with me on just about everything else.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
what the stock market does is misplace incentives. pleasing stockholders becomes the only goal. a company can have a very successful year, but if it makes less profit than the year before, it is not a success because stockholders only see that their dividend dropped. thus ceo's have intense pressure for ever-increasing growth, which is simply unrealistic. that's why our economy here is faltering. this pressure forces jobs overseas to cut costs and drives wages down, which is every bit as problematic as inflation.
my proposal would thus be stricter regulation of the corporate form. someone else here pointed out that the corporation is a privilege here, not a right.
i would actually advocate doing away with corporate taxes entirely. let the taxes fall on the income, since we're beholden to that system. let any excess go to innovation. make it easier for companies to breathe. but then also place some restrictions on pay disparity. execs should not be making 10000 times as much as the people who break their backs to get them there. perhaps instead of corporate taxes, laws that mandate that certain percentages of profits be distributed equally within a company. instead of concentrating the wealth in the hands of 10 execs who can then buy candidates to safeguard their power, that wealth is spread and increases buying power in a much broader way. this is much better for the economy as 1000 employees with a bit of disposable income can contribute far more than 1 guy with a vast fortune and 999 people struggling to pay their bills. people have incentive to perform better on the job because they have a direct stake, to an extent. or at the very least, companies have more disposable income to reinvest, update, or pay salaries. or perhaps lower costs. or any number of options.
the sushi was awesome. we went upscale on a whim and it was worth every penny. esp since my gf was buying!
Dude, you listen to too much Rage Against the Machine
Been reading up on the book mentioned and the author. I'm gonna buy it today.
You two ... Drifting By The Storm & Catch22 ... carry on. Interesting conversation. Care to create your own independent party? I'm sure ya'll would create a good party ... I mean political party. If ya won, the celebration would be great ... pj music and sushi. I'm in ... : )
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
Eh.
I think you've got the problem down correctly, but i would disagree with your solution, as being a bit too restrictive of rights.
I have personally iterated the concept of the corporate form being a privilege and not a right MANY times on this board, and i DO think that it (along with the corrupt funneling of below market rate money from the Fed to the elitist institutions, and the implicit guarantees that ensure their reign) is at the heart of the problem.
What i would prefer to see instead is a removal of the PERSONAL income tax, which according to the original proposition by Taft was never the intent of the 16th Amendment.
Read his letter to congress proposing an income tax, because he makes it quite clear the dangers of the corporate form.
He also makes it clear that it was a TAX ON PRIVELAGE.
Reverting the tax law to this original intent would rectify the imbalance in the market, by shifting the burden back on to the CORPORATE form to prove its own utility.
If something can truly be done more efficiently in the corporate form then it WILL still be done. But instead, if a business is incorporated solely to enjoy unjust benefit that befall ONLY the corporation, it will fade away as sole proprietorships (and i would argue that S Corps should ALSO be exempt from tax) take over a job that they are more advantageously able to complete, given that they would now be free from taxation and doing so under the non corporate form (or as a small S corp) would simply be more profitable.
This, along with abolishing the Fed would right a great many imbalances in the market and shift economics back in to the favor of small business and the american public, and strip the large corporations of many of thier unfair advantages.
And we wouldn't have to restrict freedoms by putting caps on market functions like pay.
??? I have to go to a bachelor party and shove some bills at some strippers.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Do you have a better solution?
The Constitutional Republic we are supposed to have?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
We do have a Constitutional Republic, where specifically did we go astray. What would you do to change it?
(I know I'm asking for a it)
I'll take "Following The Constitution" for $200, Alex.
Generally, a reversion of power back from the federal government and again to the states would be a start.
Returning the constitutionally granted authority of the federal government to set the value of coin and not to some "quazi-federal" institution, that is nothing more than a private shell corp. would be another big step.
Further clarifying those rights and powers with an amendment would probably be a good idea, too.
Getting rid of "legal tender" laws (unless some states want to make gold and silver legal tender, like the law says), and allowing free market money as the public so desires could help.
Clearing up the much perverted context of the 16th amendment would do some good.
And some sort of new found respect for the intention of preventing standing armies might do some good too.
Oh, and i can think of at least a half dozen federal agencies with 3 letter acronyms that we could do without.
And then there is education, and entitlements.
Is this the part where someone throws out the word "fundamentalist" and makes some snappy comment directed towards me saying something about slavery (respecting states rights) ?
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i'm not sure i see how this addresses the problem of greed and wealth buying influence. abolishing the personal income tax is ok by me, but even if the corporation goes extinct how does that suddenly stop "elites" from continuing to use personal wealth to protect themselves? i feel that, just like the fed, you can phase out the form but you're still going to have super rich people buying favors and finding other ways to protect themselves. i prefer the idea of making corporations very attractive and profitable and then regulating them. i don't see it as a curb on personal freedom. you can choose not to be a corporation. and any restrictions are on the corporation, not the individuals. you're making for a profitable business venture, but also ensuring that that wealth is being distributed broadly instead of being so concentrated and also spurring the innovation that initially made this country so strong and has recently been waning.
i think i see what you are saying about making small businesses, sole proprietorships, and partnerships more competitive. what are the unfair advantages you ascribe to corporations? are you talking about shielding those who fund it from liability? ie. being able to create a company without having to be responsible for its actions and abuses in a financial sense?
enjoy the bachelor party. hopefully this will make sense whenever you get to it. i'm deliriously tired and not sure any of this is clear.
Wow, I can't fault you for not doing your research.
I don't think our government is perfect, but its better than any other pre-existing government currently in power.
things have gotten out of hand, true. but some of this stuff is necessary. this country's size compared to when the constitution was written is staggering. there is simply no way for congress to handle the kind of oversight and legislation needed in a country this size with its myriad problems. some administrative quasi-executive/legislative agencies are needed. there are far too many, they encroach far too many areas, and they have been designed so patchwork that some serious revision is needed. but you cannot completely abandon federalism. the ease with which this country can draw on its different strengths from various areas and people has been a huge part of its strength. every state having completely different currency and customs would be an enormous setback. the government also has the ability to regulate interstate commerce. there is very little commerce anymore that is not interstate. we can't go back to an agrarian society. again, i'll grant that is has vastly exceeded its proper place and scope. but this country was designed to basically integrate the nation's economy and defense, while allowing local control of customs and lifestyles.
Yeah.
I will actually concede agreement with your point on corporations, their privilege and regulation of those privileges.
What i would argue, on principal at least, would be for the retained rights of the people vis a vis the state to regulate and make those determinations. I'm not even sure, given the scope of the federal government current bounds-overstepping that it would even be bad precedent to grant federal government that right of regulation, but -- like i said -- on constitutional principle alone i would argue for state management of those regulations.
As for your second post about federalism and the necessity of central government management of issues our forefathers may never have foreseen, i'm sure we could come to reasonable compromise on that. I don't even think it would be in the purview of the PJ Message Board to get in to the muck that such debate entails ... suffice to say I would settle for ANY reversion of power back to the states.
of ALL the federal encroachments upon state and individual rights (outside of the massive scope of the currency problem) my biggest personal concern would be education. I just can not, knowing what i know about the powers behind federal control, allow the youth of generations to come to be corrupted by a school system which is emblematic of the interests of the elite themselves, and not the people whom that education in theory should serve.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
But anyways, since we won't be over capitalism anytime soon, some adjustments could be nice.