It is a given in the U.S. that recapitalizing the banks is the way to go. Why? Oh, I understand the reasons that have been written. None of them question the underlying system that is capitalism. Why isn't capitalism on the table? Why is it sacrosanct? I don't consider capitalism as the Holy Grail of how to run a household.
Here's part of what Alan Greenspan wrote in the Financial Times, April 6, 2008:
I do have an ideology. So does each of the members of the Forum. I trust our views are subject to the same standards of evidence that apply to all rational discourse. My view of how the efficiency of global capitalism has evolved over the decades as new evidence has appeared contradicting some earlier judgments and confirming others. I have been surprised by the fierceness of investors in retrenching from risk since August. My view of the range of dispersion of outcomes has been shaken, but not my judgment that free competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies. We have tried regulation ranging from heavy to central planning. None meaningfully worked. Do we wish to retest the evidence?
The superrich pay everyone to take the position that questioning capitalism is out of the question. That's intellectual dishonesty.
Well, leave it to the Machiavellians. They are the experts, wink, wink. Deception is a virtue to moral idiots. These are the people about whom one says his or her moral compass is broken.
Now, America is torn right down the middle. Half believe in honesty as the best policy. The other half believes that being dishonest is required.
So, how do you trust your economy to liars? You see, the idea is that the Americans who go along with dishonesty are duped into thinking that their leaders are only going to be dishonest with outsiders.
What's going to happen? Europe will now move more from the nationalism pressures felt after the fall of the Soviet Union back to more social democracy, that's parliamentarian socialism. It's the middle of the road between state capitalism under a one-party dictatorship such as Joseph Stalin's on one hand and Herbert Hoover's laissez-fair, Roaring Twenties, pre-collapse capitalism on the other hand.
This means nationalization, the exact thing that the free-marketeers whined about toward Hugo Chavez. So, why was Hugo wrong then, but now it's just pragmatic? It's called hypocrisy and double talk. Hugo wasn't any more wrong before than the nationalizers are today in Britain.
When Alan Greenspan was last on DemocracyNow, he said the following about Populism:
Well, remember what populist politics is. It's a very special brand of short-term focus, which invariably creates very difficult long-term problems. A goodly part of the book, as you know, is written about how populism has gripped, say, many Latin American countries to their detriment. And the term "populist politics" is essentially another way of saying short term versus longer term. And people who emphasize short-term benefits for long-term costs end up with very little in the way of economic growth and prosperity.
I wrote the following over a year ago about what he had to say:
That is not the definition of Populism. He's lying. Populism is for the people, as in government of, by, and for the people. Populism is against consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few greedy ones who pay off dupes to beat down the people who restrain themselves out of their good nature from tearing the rich apart limb from limb. Populists do not have a short-term focus. Jesus was a Populist under God and had an eternal vision. Greenspan is for the overlord system to which Jesus was diametrically opposed. It's one of the reasons they murdered him. Large scale movements to Populism have always been crushed by rabid capitalists long before the benefits of cooperation could show through. The capitalists have done this for the very reason that benefits would show through if cooperation were not violently crushed and economically cutoff from so-called open markets. Alan Greenspan is either ignorant or disingenuous. We say Greenspan is knowingly taking a deliberately hardhearted approach.
The currency belongs to the people. It should be nationalized. The Federal Reserve should be done away with. Privatized national banks are terrible. They are for the greediest of the greedy: The plutocrats and kleptocrats. We don't need such selfishness. It's always been evil. Usury (interest on loans) is awful. It's bloodsucking. It's financial vampirism.
The New Deal is coming back and then some. If you're going to have a democracy, why vote for what is bad for everyone? If you're going to coerce each other, the least you can do is the lesser of evils. The democratic socialism of Eugene V. Debs is where the U.S. and Europe will have to end up just to stave off total collapse a little longer then if they stick with laissez-faire.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit ... If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize, as we have never realized before, our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take, but we must give as well. — Franklin Roosevelt, first Inaugural Address
The problem is that the money changers came back with a vengeance and the people forgot the truth. What will happen this time? This cycle cannot continue repeating.
Soak-the-rich is the mundane thing to do. It won't work in the end though. I don't recommend it. It's just a bandage on an un-healable wound. The right thing to do is to move straight to Christianity as I've outlined on this website for the world to see. (The Christian Commons Project™.)
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)