Why don't most "liberals/progressives" understand that the financial crash was set up by the ultra-greedy? It's a proven pattern. History clearly shows it. I'm not going to produce an essay here with that as my thesis though. I have a more general outline I wish to present (again and again until fruition).
The liberal understanding of the recent financial crash is as with global-warming only reversed. The "conservatives" don't understand that the ultra-greedy are doing everything in their power to mask the fact of man-made (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW) because many of their incomes depend on it since they aren't smart enough or more so caring enough to switch their industries.
It's like 9/11 Truth too only presently, most of the progressives don't look at WTC Building 7 rapidly and uniformly falling straight down and see therein that it wasn't from the few and wholly un-uniform fires or the relatively slight damage to the steel frame.
The financial crash is a pattern where the superrich crash the system and then get bailed out by the general population and then seek to reduce the state so they, the ultra-rich, can grab market share from the public sector. The pattern has been perfected over the decades and even centuries now. The students of the rich study the patterns of behavior and outcomes and preposition themselves and things to repeat the patterns to enrich themselves at the direct, negative expense of the general population, whom those rich ones and rich ones in the making or wishful rich, see as weak due to caring about others. The world of the laissez-faire capitalist is dog-eat-dog, and they are dogs and the proverbial swine for their gluttony. It's biblical, in case you want to look it up.
Now we have the banksters and their major corporate underlings and collaborators and hangers-on all having been bailed out on the general populations' taxpayer-dime and then turning around demanding austerity for those who paid for that bailing and where those taxpayers would not have gone down with the banksters had they not been bailed out.
We have the federal, state, and local governments being systematically attacked for market share, plain and simple. Austerity means cutting public services so the privatizers can gobble up the market and take additional huge profits off the people where before the contrived crash and such privatizing, the services were completely affordable.
Here's the dictionary definition of laissez-faire capitalism:
An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.
The capitalists bought the elected representatives and government executives and officials, the main media, and many academics so that there would be wholesale deregulation so that their so-called economic laws would have free rein. Before deregulation, before the rollback of the progressive's New Deal, crashes were fewer and gentler. After deregulation, we've had this Great Recession, which is really a depression. The laissez-faire types claim that the banksters should have fallen. They are right. However, their system would not prevent the corporations becoming the state. In fact, that is happening, and those laissez-faireers aren't shouting for trust busting because trust busting is a progressive thing. Therefore, laissez-faire capitalism is both inherently and fatally flawed, as selfishness is.
The economic doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism is a non-starter. It's a ridiculous doctrine. You can't have principled selfishness. That's an oxymoron and no true paradox. Capitalism is inherently evil. It has not brought forth the good on balance. The costs have always outweighed those things held out as benefits.
Other systems have always done better where capitalism has not been able to attack. Capitalism only exists because of attacks. It cannot win without attacking. Socialism though can win on an even field and without attacking but rather simply appealing to the better angels. The hard edge of some brands of socialism have only resulted due to the attacks on people's right to choose socialism. Collectives have been systematically attacked down through the ages and marginalized and evilly forbidden even by the Roman Catholic Church for all but the clergy: Socialism for the Roman Catholic Orders but capitalism for the laypeople. It sounds familiar what with the recent blatantly obvious wave of socialism for the banksters and plutocrats but capitalism for even the poorest of the poor.
Where the bailout of the banksters cost the people literally trillions (and it's far from over yet due to the fact that those banksters are waiting out mark-to-market realities for the next contrived real estate bubble), the cost to bring all the US states back into alignment would be under $200 billion; but the superrich, super-greedy, have purchased the media and government so that the common people are seemingly stuck even though most of them know that the whole thing is a scam — a giant Ponzi scheme, as I've written many times before and before I saw it elsewhere, though I have no doubt others came to the same conclusion independently.
Even though the answers to all of this, the solutions to all of this, are right out there on my blog and I've stated them repeatedly in social media and on news sites around the web (often censored though), the media is owned by those who will not put those ideas front and center and keep them their so that those who are stuck in the mainstream will learn of them and come to understand them and seek to make the necessary changes. It's censorship of, by, and for the superrich.
There's a huge mental blockage. Very few people have gotten it. That's changing due largely to the efforts of people such as Ellen Brown, who has been advocating with great success for North Dakota type industrial state banks, and Bill Still, who has almost single-handedly spread the word that money does not have to be gold and that the National Debt could be and should be eliminated without a bit of "austerity."
However, it's like pulling teeth to get the mainstream "liberals" and progressives to champion these things. They are really, really slow on the uptake. They are mostly afraid to buck the system at its core. They fear the loss of the gravy train while they undertake a revolution. They lack vision and daring. They allow FOX News to hype the Tea Party. They spend huge quantities of time fighting for vileness that only aids and abets the vileness of the capitalist purveyors of decadence (porn, etc.). It's not real love they're selling. It's feeding into lustful temptations that kill goodness out of selfishness.
Out of one side of the laissez-faire capitalists' mouths, they clamor for the free marketplace while out of the other side, they make their deals to buy the commons so that those who stand opposed to the monopoly by greed and who have the answers don't have any place to speak out where they may be heard far and wide and often enough to separate the wolves (capitalists) from the sheep (everyone who wants everyone well off and not devoured by greed). It is deliberate. It is part of the scam. It is a historical pattern. It is a criminal conspiracy. It is un-democratic and un-republican (small-r).
We also hear from mostly the minions, dupes, sycophants, and closet-recipients of grants from laissez-faire think tanks funded by the likes of the anti-democratic Koch brothers (whom I've also been writing about for years now) that the United States of America is not a democracy but a republic. They actually believe or want others to be duped into believing that the Constitution of the United States of America is not based upon voting for, and the election of, representatives and officers who create, interpret, and carry out the laws of the land. They try to get people to believe that the US is not a democracy because the more democratic the society, the less power the rich have over those who want people treated fairly, justly, and honestly.
The more democracy, the more the general population understands it's own power via democracy to bring in fundamental fairness, the less the superrich can continue being the current-day "nobility" with all the special, private "rights and privileges" attending over the nearly, and often, non-existent rights and privileges of everyone else. Basically, it is sociopathy.
The superrich are more sociopathic than the bulk of the population that is ill-informed by reason of what I mentioned above that is that the superrich own the mainstream media and government. They own the government by way of funding and perks they dish out to the politicians. Those who don't want the graft are simply out spent and given only bad media coverage or none at all and are systematically attacked from the shadows by paid mudslingers with lies all to cast doubt in the minds of mainstream dupes. That changes the subject from the issues and the solutions, which solutions that superrich don't want because it would mean that their ill-gotten gains would disappear. Their ill-gotten power and control would also disappear, and the people would be as free as it gets in the mundane.
The answers are simple, but try getting the mainstream to tell the general population and to stay on the subject until everyone who can, will understand.
Rather than a private central bank that skims interest off the public and aids and abets their brother banksters in creating money via debt creation and the evil that is usury (any interest on debt), the US Constitution states that the federal government is to set the value of the money. Instead, it allowed the unconstitutional Federal Reserve to set the value of money via monetarization.
The Federal Reserve (which is an intentionally tricky misnomer since it's not Federal and can have zero reserves) sets the Fed rate wherever and whenever it decides, which rate is the interest rate it charges to member banks to borrow money from the Fed, which money the Fed orders the federal government to create. The government therefore and contrary to the US Constitution does not set the value of the money. It abrogates that to the Federal Reserve or private banksters thereby relegating the whole federal government to a criminal syndicate. The Fed sets the value of money, and that's unconstitutional. It should not have been allowed. It must be reversed, and the sooner the better.
The interest on the bonds the government creates to fund its deficits is paid in taxes. Reduce the interest, and all other things being equal, taxes go down leaving more money in the non-banker's pockets rather than going to the banking criminal syndicate that is the entire so-called federal-banking system.
Right now, we have a privatized monetary system where we need a wholly public system to solve the problems.
At this point, I want to point out that there is a spectrum within this system that includes the Austrian School of economics. The debate between this school and the Chicago School concerns the Fed and monetarism. The Austrians are anti-Fed and hence anti-monetarism, as the Fed uses the setting of interest rates to increase and decrease the supply/circulation of money whereas the Austrians want the Gold Standard (more on that below).
The Austrians rightly say that the buying of politicians is crony capitalism; however, many supposed Austrians are Austrians as a front and don't dare take Austrianism to its logical conclusion (monopoly), at least not in public. They go right on ahead buying politicians, media, and academics at public universities and take huge government contracts and really seek to privatize everything into their own hands.
The laissez-faire capitalists, as we've seen above, lie and especially obfuscate and censor. They do everything they can to make it appear as if the crashes are unpredictable, that they don't cut the deals in the backrooms, that they aren't criminals. What's more, they tell all sorts of lies about socialism.
They focus on the worst elements, such as Stalin (who wasn't even truly a socialist, as he set up bosses who lived in splendor while the masses starved), while insisting that no socialism has ever worked, let alone worked very well, anywhere, ever. Of course we know that those nations which have practiced democratic socialism and managed to keep the predatory capitalist wolves at bay but still manage to remain reasonably open have faired much better than the US on all of the most important indicators of quality of life across-the-board.
When the laissez-faire capitalists talk about lifting people out of poverty, they don't discuss what they have euphemistically termed externalities, a stupid ploy to call global pollution something else and to make it all appear to be unintended. Toxic dumping is definitely for the sake of self-defeating profit, which is no real profit at all.
When the laissez-faire capitalists talk about lifting people out of poverty, they don't discuss those who are deliberately left behind to keep down labor, to keep raping the people.
When the laissez-faire capitalists talk about lifting people out of poverty, they don't discuss those other nation-states that were very successful in eliminating poverty much better than the US.
It is true that there are trade-offs in both capitalism and socialism. That's why the most prosperous nation-states in terms of quality of life have opted for the mixed economy. The mixed-economic picture though remains locked into the mainstream understanding rather than being fully understood. Capitalism is not necessary in order to avoid the trade-offs that are often seen by and represented by capitalists as the diminishment of freedom — freedom to buy and sell whatever — under socialism. Whereas, where democracy in its purest form is fully functioning at the most common level, decisions about who has what, etc., can be made in ways that are best for all concerned since nothing we do doesn't impact all others in one way or another and to one degree or another.
We need to switch the system from the Federal Reserve System to the constitutional system where the federal government pegs the value of the dollar to properly defined real productivity. Every human being and group of human beings beginning at the most local level decides what ought to be done. Then working from that level up, the funding decisions are made. The money is created to bring forth that productivity. Goods and services are all created and the people retain the power of their purses and can still buy and sell and independently create. What is missing are the federal bonds and hence the federal debt and associated taxes. What is also missing is the government holding out its hand for taxes of any kind. What is also missing are the banks issuing debt and collecting interest. Consider all of that and the boon it would bring.
When the value of money changes, the people's government would automatically reduce or increase supply across-the-board not via interest rates but directly. In this way, all ships truly would rise or lower with the tide — but what lowering?
Real productivity is to be measured in non-finance capital terms. Everything that is private-finance related today (including openly traded corporations as not part of the public sector) would not be factored into determining productivity for purposes of determining and managing money supply and circulation.
Goods and services seen as the most basic would receive the most weight: Water, food, shelter, energy, clothing, furniture, healthcare, education, and transportation might form the backbone for instance.
All other non-private-finance related things would also be part of the basket of goods and services used to decide the true inflation or deflation as the case may be.
With the advent of the supercomputer and point-of-sale/use computer networking and the like, there is no reason whatsoever that we human beings cannot know in nearly real-time what is happening regarding inflation/deflation and instantly and automatically exactly correct the money supply accordingly. That's a feedback loop only as a starting place because eventually once the people can wrap their minds around it, money would be unnecessary. Only one's voice at the basic level would be needed.
Within this frame work and on account of real democracy where the people have a real say about giving and sharing and are not censored by the superrich, as there would finally be no superrich owning all the major media or purchasing the government, the people would afford themselves minimum standards of living that would be very high in deed. Water, food, shelter, energy, clothing, furniture, healthcare, education, and transportation would be freely given every worker and to all those who cannot work or are retired. Education would be wholly public and unlimited, meaning there would be zero tuition, zero room and board costs, or materials and supplies and textbook costs for anyone capable of doing the work to receive the highest degree of education.
Eventually, everyone would come to realize that the selfishness associated with selling for private gain is counterproductive. It always has been. The perceived gains have always been illusory — always and everywhere at the expense of the better and best path.
It is true that this "democracy" is coercive, but so too is the laissez-faire system. In laissez-faire capitalism, the state is not to be coercive except to protect the racket that is capitalism, to protect selfishness at the direct, negative expense of those who are in general less inclined to greed and self-centeredness. In laissez-faire capitalism, the power to coerce is transferred back into private hands.
Because eventually everyone would come to realize that the selfishness is evil, coercion would end up being replaced by the consensus to unselfishness. Sociopathy would completely disappear.
There is a ruse called the "principled libertarian" in the capitalist sense. The Koch brothers attempt to pawn themselves off as such; however, they show a clear lack of morality by virtue of their flagrant polluting of the commons, which commons they seek to monopolize for themselves and their posterity (if that posterity can survive the impacts). It is certainly the opposite of employing the Golden Rule, and don't let their phony so-called philanthropy fool you for a second. They don't give a dime to what would undermine their private empire.
Therefore, do the following:
- Campaign for the nationalization of the Federal Reserve
- Campaign for the direct issuance of interest- debt- and tax-free United States Notes pegged in real-time exactly to properly defined productivity
- Campaign for direct democracy at the basic local level as much as is practicable
- Campaign for having elected representatives who may be recalled and replaced at anytime via the direct-democratic decision of that basic local-level and at each level above.
Lastly, there are two other major areas of contention I wish to address before concluding.
Gold: For the most part, the laissez-faire types are calling for a return to what they call the Gold Standard. Rather than simply setting the value of a dollar in terms of the basket I described above (water, food, shelter, energy, clothing, furniture, healthcare, education, and transportation), they want only one item in that basket: gold. Now, gold isn't any of the things I mentioned in my basket. Gold can be and has been traded for those things as a medium of exchange; however, I don't want to lug around gold and neither do I want gold being considered more important than other commodities beyond natural, non-exchange utility.
Gold is obtained and hoarded at the top of the upside-down pyramid (the current system) by those who mine it capitalistically for wholly selfish reasons. That process is rife with environmental problems. There are many other unfairnesses associated with that "market" too, but even if those were all fixed, the environmental issues would remain. The less gold mining that needs to be done for utilitarian purposes the better. In addition, my public-education proposals would go a long way in the discovery and utilization of environmentally less harmful extraction methods if we end up needing to extract at all. I believe we won't need to extract gold if we do things right. I believe nothing, including gold, is finite in the end. I believe everything is akin to the metaphysical in the end. I believe the obstacle is the lack of real love that is always harmless in the end.
Returning to the Gold Standard is a distraction and harmful to the cause.
The other thing I want to touch upon is that the price-market where the price is mammon is not valuable when compared against the vote where money is not required. The laissez-faireers want the pocketbook to replace the public, moneyless ballot box. They do as much as they can to subvert that ballot box, and the reasons for that should be obvious. The rich can buy the private sector whereas they can't buy the public sector at least where the public is properly informed, something the rich hate and seek to prevent at all costs, hence their secret meetings where they discuss how best to further dupe the duped and to dupe those who are not.
In conclusion, let me say that freedom is not the license to buy and sell in capitalism. That is enslavement to mammon and a recipe to monopoly by the greediest sociopath of them all. It is the recipe for the son of evil to reign over the Earth for a season and to pass that reign on to his chosen heir alone. It is the recipe for the richest person on Earth to rule by decree whether the edict is the most draconian imaginable or not.
Real freedom is freedom from that evil, and that evil is selfishness. The less selfishness in the world, the better the place will be in which to exist. It's not complicated. Economics is not complicated at all. The world is a household. We should run it as a loving family. Everything else is evil and enslaving.
Liberty is the power of God, and God is self-restrained by righteousness.
If you like what I say, and you should, then join the Christian Commons now. Together, we can translate the system of mammon into what will end the evil.
This has been "Financial Crashes and What to Do About It All: Capitalism v. Democratic Socialism."
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)