"Why Wall Street Always Blows It," by Henry Blodget. The Atlantic. December 2008.

First, bubbles are to free-market capitalism as hurricanes are to weather: regular, natural, and unavoidable. They have happened since the dawn of economic history, and they'll keep happening for as long as humans walk the Earth, no matter how we try to stop them. We can't legislate away the business cycle, just as we can't eliminate the self-interest that makes the whole capitalist system work. We would do ourselves a favor if we stopped pretending we can.

Hogwash. That statement above is antichrist garbage.

The whole article completely ignores the fact that there are ultra-rich people who are private bankers who have people on their payrolls whose job it is to study all history to glean every last bit they can so that those super-rich bankers can also pay people to design game strategies in series with tactics to use to make economic war. That's a fact. Anyone who doesn't believe it just doesn't have a clue about how evil and so-called clever the most selfish of the selfish can be.

Frankly, the author of the piece has worked overtime to re-ingratiate himself. He's excusing himself and deliberately ignoring what he actually learned. It's better kept secret so he may better kiss up to the hands that feed (the mammon worshipers and lovers).

This propaganda piece is the artful dodge of one who is doing his best not to be too introspective. He wants plausible deniability in his own mind. Don't let the right hand know what the left hand is doing. Just how conscious is he? Well, Jesus says he's the blind following the blind into the ditch. History bears that out, since this author is apparently prepared for society and humanity to remain fooled that there is no better system.

There is a better system though, and the Hutterites and others have been practicing it for centuries. It would be better known and understood only the likes of the ultra-rich paid murderous thugs to kill the unselfish pacifists bent upon showing the light of truth of that very way called sharing.

I hate these disingenuous articles all over the Internet. They just lead and lead and lead people right over that cliff the author went right over taking his clients with him, as if there is no other choice but to be stupid.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Victor Sukhovitsky

      Dear Mr. Blodget,

      while i have no doubt that you are a highly experienced and educated person, i have to strongly disagree with your commentary about the above statement. As Goshi of the gaia community stated

      "Every noble action is selfish. Some selfish actions are nobler than others. But they are all selfish. And as such there can be no action purely noble anyway. Even the nobility in God's great philosophical intentions is bounded by his vanity."

      people always think of themselves when making decisions. if they are acting for the benefit of others, at their detriment, then it is so that in the long run, they themselves may benefit. such is the world of business. People act to increase their standing, whether it is by meeting a payroll, or by cheating others out of precious opportunities to succeed.

      • Hello Victor,

        It's very late, and I don't have time right now to address much of what you've written. Please let me clarify that Blodget wrote the block quoted portion in the post above. Secondly, since you aren't aware that I've defined "self" and "selfishness" and "unselfishness" on the blog, I won't come on too strong about your use of the term selfish, which shows semantical limitations that don't apply to Christianity, by definition.

        God is self. Christians seek to become and to be one with God.

        The language becomes a barrier for those who don't start at the beginning, which is the recognition that they have been selfish in the worst sense-meaning of the term. From there, one may progress. I won't go into it all right now though. If you're interested, all of it is spelled out on this site.

        I will say that you appear to be lumping everyone together in the "business" world. There are people who do not put themselves first. Jesus did not, but he did hold that all of us should put first all those who do not put themselves first. In so doing, the worldly world is turned right-side up and then leveled. Such is Heaven.

        I trust you will not allow yourself to become offended by my reply.


        Tom Usher