-8 votes

Obama, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve, A Fascist Regime

Obama's partnership with the Fed and Wall Street cronies equates to a fascist regime. A fascist regime creates monopolies and cartels that eliminate competitive markets and have the ability to buy judges, politicians and elections. This usurpation of our right to representation is a betrayal of all the men and women who've fought and died for American ideals.

The generally accepted definition of fascism is a dictatorial centralized regime that imposes severe economic and social repression. The Federal gov't, Federal Reserve and Wall Street created a subprime bubble. This precipitated the financial crisis and the creation of Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks, which according to the CBO will cost taxpayers 8.6 Trillion to prop up. The links are short videos of Sen. Brown citing the CBO report, Rep. Sherman saying Dodd-Frank's Resolution Authority equates to taxation without representation, and Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron saying Dodd-Frank "institutionalizes TARP for bank holding companies".

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343308
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343222
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343218

The subprime bubble led to the creation of TBTF banks, which led to Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank allows Trillions of tax dollars to be spent for future bailouts, without Congressional approval. So market manipulation by gov't and corporations has eliminated one of our core Constitutional rights, i.e., no taxation without representation. America's founders endured similar oppression under King George III and his private sector cronies, so they rebelled against tyranny and instituted a government to "secure" their unalienable rights, which are given to us by the Creator. For solutions to hold the fascist regime accountable and restore our rights, check out this post titled "Fraud and the Federal Debt".

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1047

Wild animals function in a social hierarchy based on the strong dominating the weak. They don't possess a transcendent morality like humans, which translates into moral judgments that protect the weak from being assaulted, robbed or killed by the strong. The same Darwinian principles that govern wild animals (strong dominate the weak), are practiced by Machiavellian tyrants who feign morality while imposing the full weight of moral judgement on their citizens. These Darwinian principles are used to justify the lawless, immoral activities of large corporations, their officers, and boards of directors. The combination of Machiavellian leaders and immoral corporatism has resulted in a fascist regime. The legal and moral double standard they practice is the root of increasing global corruption.

George Soros and others argue that markets are amoral, i.e., markets are not subject to judgments whether moral or immoral. But markets are created and run by humans, and all nations have laws against fraud, theft, murder, etc., and these laws are based on moral judgments. Furthermore, the human activities that animate markets are subject to these laws, so the argument that markets are amoral is just a clever attempt to place financial elites above the law.

When drafting our founding documents, the founders drew upon John Locke's Treatises on Government and Montesquieu's "The Spirit of Laws", among others. Within the moral framework of a Constitutional Republic, a competitive capitalist economy provides the greatest amount of economic freedom while providing for the free exercise of unalienable rights. And a capitalist economy requires rules, for example, if you commit fraud and bankrupt your business, you must be allowed to fail and go to jail. Rules when enforced, eliminate the problem of TBTF banks. Also, monopolies are anti-competitive and don't allow for price discovery based on supply and demand. So in a capitalist economy, rules are necessary to ensure the efficient allocation of resources, price discovery based on supply and demand, and an economy where success is based on merit, not privilege.

So the question is, which political and economic models provide the most freedom for the most people? I believe Ron Paul's libertarian concept of limited gov't is the political model that best secures unalienable rights, and within that moral framework, a competitive capitalist economy provides the most economic freedom. These are self evident truths proven by thousands of years of empirical observation. For common sense solutions to limit the power of fascist banking cartels and the government that supports them, check out this DP post.

http://www.dailypaul.com/274979

Thomas Paine said the following: If there were to be a king, it would have to be the rule of law, and if a day of celebration were to be set aside, then homage should be paid to the law, a crown set upon it to remind those gathered that the law is king.

Check out these posts titled "Morals, Ethics and the Role of Gov't in a Capitalist Economy" and "Occupy Wall Street". The OWS post demonstrates the leftist connection to fascist corporations.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=917
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=523



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not exactly, the definition

Not exactly, the definition does not state that it does not exist. That something you've inferred upon the definition. It is what you want the definition to say. The Black Market transacts everyday without government intervention of any kind, and it is untaxed. The free market does exist, its open 24/7/365.

The derivatives market could not exist without government regulation that allow felons to go unpunished when they operate under the corporate umbrella.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Webster's definition of "ideal"

1: existing only in the mind: not real 2: embodying or sybolizing an ideal [which is not real]

I would suggest you get real, if you want to have an intellectually honest dialogue.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

That's two of many

That's two of many definitions of ideal.

b : conforming exactly to an ideal, law, or standard

The Black Market is unregulated by government and untaxed. It conforms to the definition, "A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation."

the Black Market is real, you can see it OUTSIDE of you mind.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

"Let's go to the show

"Let's go to the show together at 6 pm. Ideally, you'll pick me up at 5:30pm."

So this suggest that its impossible for you to pick me up at 5:30pm??

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

This is getting ridiculous but...

Webster's definition of "ideally" is, 1: an idea or imagination: MENTALLY (realizable only ideally, not in fact) 2: conformable to an ideal : PERFECTLY (ideally suited to the position)

#2 applies to your use of "ideally" in reference to a meeting time.

#1 is the adverb version of "ideal", which you used to define the ideal free market, i.e., an idea or imagination, not real.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Yes, and 3 b: conforming

Yes, and 3 b: conforming exactly to an ideal, law, or standard
applies to the defiinition I gave for free market. We know that this is the correct definition because the Black Market does indeed fit the definition, and it does in fact exist, it is not imagined.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

You must have your crack...

research team (Bugs Bunny the Scwewy Wabbit and Elmer Fudd) looking up definitions for you because your coming up with some reawy reawy scwewy stuff there T Rex. If not, maybe you should take advantage of the Awareness Coalition's Deprogramming services.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Merriam

Merriam Webster's
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideal

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

The source is one thing but....

the interpetation is another. We could spend a lifetime debating the interpetation of the interpetation of the interpetation.......to infinity, because that's the whole point of an anarchist's subversive tactics. Disagree on everything as a means to break down established social norms and subvert civil society.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Right.......such as your OWN

Right.......such as your OWN definition of a free market, in which I've never heard ANYONE define as being COMPLETELY unregulated. No one, except YOUR OWN definition. It is generally accepted to mean unregulated BY GOVERNMENT. Yet you insist that the free market cannot exist because it regulates itself and therefore is not free.

You disagree on the commonly accepted norm for the definition of a free market, insisting that YOUR OWN definition of a free market, and this subverts and causes a breakdown in civil discussions.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

You've made some good points so tell me what you think about

ending the Fed's exclusive franchise on the money supply so we can get back to something resembling free market captialism, as per the definition you provided. Post a new comment on this topic and start a new thread.

The reason I'm so bullheaded about the terminology is that crony CRAPitalists in the media try to pretend they're free market advocates. But let's move past my pet peeve and start a thread about solutions to the Fed problem. I'd appreciate your input.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Laissez Faire economics or "the free market", exists only when..

The non-agression principle is followed. All of the infrastructure of the free market gets created by "the invisible hand" (and has been proven to do so both academically and really) when the basic judeo-christian cultural premise of the NAP, aka, the "Golden Rule" is in place and enforced by a minimalistic government. On top of that, the only other required thing for the invisible hand to work is information flow.

Where you go wrong in your analysis is comparing the free market to social darwinism. Social darwinism is actually a hallmark of economic collectivists who try to control the market, as they feel "someone needs to" determine who gets resources and to do that "someone needs to" control resources.

In laissez faire, it's none of your g-d business who has what resources and that's the end of that subject.

Unfortunately...

the non-agression principle in fanciful theory that has never been applied without enforcement by a governing body, even if that governing body is just a tribal elder whose tribal members have agreed to give him/her the authority to arbitrate disputes.

The invisible hand, what a great metaphor for the imaginary concept known as the free market. At least you admit your ideology is faith based, and not the product of empirical observation.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

So, all economic textbooks are wrong...

...and the study of economics doesn't really exist since it's all "faith based"?

Really. Tell that to Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Ron Paul. See what they say.

Let me guess, you think that resources should be prioritized to "productive members of society" where the determination of who is productive is not up to the market.

Your view is quite old and very predictable. Shall I break out my Das Kapital book and find it in there for you? Did you think your views were original? LOL.

Why would you have to geuss...

about my economic philosphy? Just read my post and explain how my support for, and interpetation of a competitive capitalist economy compares with Marx.

You live in a fantasy world, you'll never achieve the imaginary free market where the invisible hand determines winners and losers in the market. The best we can do in terms of economic freedoms and unalienable rights is a capitalist economy within the moral framework of limited gov't.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Isn't that exactly ....

what I wrote in my original reply to you?

I don't recall you saying ...

a completely free market is a figment of your imagination and therefore the invisible hand will never determine winners and losers in the market. And because of that, we have to settle for capitalism within the moral framework of limited gov't. No, I do not recall you saying that, because after you said the Golden Rule must be enforced by a minimalistic gov't in order to achieve a free market, you conclude by saying "it's none of your g-d business who has what resources." I would say that falls outside the moral framework of a limited gov't. If you're going to engage in double speak, which of the two positions am I supposed to believe?

What do you think of Thomas Jefferson's aquisition of the Louisiana Purchase?

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Farmer Joe milks his cow.

Farmer Joe milks his cow. Without pasteurization, Farmer Joe sells his milk. Farmer Joe has lots of customers, he makes a good living with his milk. He makes clear to all his customers that his milk is not pasteurized. Farmer Joe charges TWICE the price for his milk than the commercial producers, yet he still has more demand than he can sell. It is in fact for this reason that Farmer Joe's business thrives, due to fresh whole unprocessed milk. Other farmers see what Joe is doing and they begin to sell their milk unprocessed also. But Farmer Joe is raided, his business shut down, and his customers unable to obtain the product they desire. The customers are only left with one choice for dairy, pasteurized milk.

Who was Farmer Joe's aggressor??? Could it be that Joe's competition, the corporate dairy industry, has "hired" government to take Joe out of business, thereby eliminating their competition? Is government actually a TOOL for aggression??? Would there actually be NO AGGRESSION against Joe if there was no government??? Would the corporate dairy even be around if there were no government propping them up, if they were forced to operate in a market free form government intervention, a market of competition???
Dairy lobby drives raw milk issue

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

You're stating the obvious

Of course gov't can be used as a tool of aggression. But without gov't, farmer Joe's wife and kids would have no recourse if someone decided to kill Joe and steal his herd. It's not possible that you cannot understand why the founders instituted a gov't to "secure" their rights. It's as simple as 1+1=2. So why do you always focus on the negative aspects of gov't? Whether that gov't takes the form of an indigenous tribe or a Constitutional Republic, it's the best we can do in an imperfect world. There are no examples of anarchical societies that have successfully secured the rights of its members. With the exeception of one right, the right to disagree about everything.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Without government, Joe's

Without government, Joe's wife and kids would have the recourse of a rifle, as well as the support of the local community.

Other than that, you are correct. This is life, there are no guarantees. I've no doubt though that Famer Joe and his family would be more likely to succeed without government intrusion, than the certainty of government intrusion. The comparison that you present, that someone MAY kill Joe and steal his herd...government DOES and HAS shut him down. Had the government not shut "Joe" down, he may have, and likely would have, lived his entire life without seeing such aggression. His children would most likely have inherited the farm and lived the same life. Comparing the likelihood of a non governmental criminal attack on Joe, and a direct governmental criminal attack on Joe, the criminal attack from government is HIGHLY likely.

Why do you focus on the UNLIKELY negative aspects of a market absent of government intervention?

The native Americans secured rights under an anarchical society, up until the US government decided to eliminate them. The majority of the tribes even traded, FREELY, with the settlers, until they were pushed out of their land.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

So why don't you go to Africa or the Amazon rain forest...

and find some tribe as far away from gov't as you can get (in the real world, not the ideal world) and live the life you long for?

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Why don't you go to North

Why don't you go to North Korea and live the life you long for?

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

North Korea?

That's the black market hellhole of the world. Why would I want to live with a bunch of your comrades?

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Conflating ideas again...

http://www.fee.org/library/detail/regulation-red-herring/

What’s overlooked—intentionally or not—is that the alternative to a government-regulated economy is not an unregulated one. As a matter of fact, “unregulated economy,” like square circle, is a contradiction in terms. If it’s truly unregulated it’s not an economy, and if it’s an economy, it’s not unregulated. The term “free market” does not mean free of regulation. It means free of government interference.

Maybe you should read my post again because....

I didn't say the alternative to a government regulated economy is an unregulated one. I said the term "free market" is misleading because it suggests an absence of any regulation, including natural law. The post also addresses the difference between human and wild animal codes of behavior. In a Constitutional Republic, many of the unregulated behaviors of wild animals are illegal if practiced by humans, and this also applies to markets.

I believe the term "free market" has been co-opted by monopolies and cartels who want to equate their command and control economic model with capitalism. That's why I drop the word free when describing my economic philosphy and define it as a competitive, capitalist market economy based on the rule of law. For more on this, check out this comment of mine that was posted earlier.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2970528

My website: http://www.standupforyourrights.me

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Mark, you may just have to

Mark, you may just have to bite the bullet and admit that YOU have felt misled by the term "free market" and assume that others have as well, but that the term does not mean what you want to insist upon.

I'm not saying you're wrong in feeling misled, or even in assuming masses of others have been misled. But there comes a time when a phrase has entered common parlance and won't really care if you were misled. There comes a time when you have to accept the definition and help others you perceive as stuck by the term understand how it's being used and roll with it.

I get this because I refused to use the term "negative numbers" for several years. Even after I understood how the term was being used (misused!) in mathematics, I was all rebellious and irked that those math people had been so sloppy with their nomenclature. Weird, but, guess what? The mathematicians don't care that I'm irked by their sloppy names. The field of inquiry moves on whether I want to accept the evolving definition or not. I chose to roll with the sloppy definition because I want to proceed with my understanding of theoretical math. Okay, it took awhile, but eventually my desire for progress overcame my rebellion about terms.

I gave you the working definition of "free market" early on, and I see many more posters have supplied it. You can quibble about nomenclature, but chances are you're not going to change it. You can accept the common definition so that you can communicate about economics with folks who speak this language. Or you can keep sniping about how you don't like the phrase and think language should change to suit you.

Like I said, I understand this rebellious stage. I can only advise that you make short shift of it because it will get you nowhere and waste your time.

I've decided to take your advice because...

I've beat the questionable use of free market to death. I'd like to start a new thread that talks about possible solutions to ending the Fed's monopoly over our money supply because they're the biggest obstacle to practicing free market principles in America. See, I used the term free market! Anyway, post an new comment and start a new thread on something you think is productive. Thanks for your input.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Cool. I look forward to how

Cool. I look forward to how you explore this.

Just wanted to pass along something I read today. I volunteer passing out used books at my local food bank. Today, Sowell's "Basic Economics" came in. Of course, I couldn't pawn it off on anyone. I skipped to his chapter on Myths About Markets. Here's a bit of what he had to say:

Perhaps the biggest myth about markets comes from the name itself. We tend to think of a market as a thing when in fact it is people engaging in economic transactions among themselves on whatever terms their mutual accommodations lead to....A market in this sense can be contrasted with central planning or government regulation. To often, however, when a market is conceived of as a thing, it is regarded as an impersonal mechanism, when in fact it is as personal as the people in it. This misconception allows third parties to seek to take away the freedom of individuals to transact with one another on mutually agreeable terms, and to depict this restriction of their freedom as rescuing people from the "dictates" of the impersonal market, when in fact this would be subjecting them to the dictates of third parties.

I often hear "the market did this today" and....

reach the same conclusion that this implies an impersonal mechanism that ignores the individuals who animate the market. And while this can be used to deny the rights of market makers, conversely, it can be used to shield them from accountability for wrong doing. For example, some argue that markets are ammoral, free from any moral judgement. But all nations have laws against theft, fraud, murder, etc., and these laws are based on moral judgements. So the argument that markets are ammoral is a clever attempt to place the individuals who comprise financial elites above the law.

I would like to continue this dialogue so others can follow the thread, so if you want to, click on "new comment" at the bottom of my post to bring the comment to the top of the page. Thanks.

PS: I changed the title of the post to indicate my acceptance of the prevalent definition of a free market.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

The prevalent definition of a free market

I admit, that trying to respond the many comments resulted in my overlooking much information. But in the link below, someone offered a formal definition of a free market, someone who thought they disagreed with me. Although you may think it trivial, it may shed some light on the topic. The key sentence in the definition is "A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy...". And of course, an ideal is symbolic, it only exists in the mind, and such is the "free" market, just an ideal that exists in the mind. And yet, this symbolic ideal was used by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan to justify the creation of a "dark" derivatives market, the notional value of which exceeds 650 Trillion dollars. This astronomical market distortion masquerading as the "free" market is what caused the financial crisis. If not for the willful suspension of disbelief by the intelligentsia, this crime against humanity could not have occured. What crime you ask? According to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, "11 TRILLION dollars of household wealth and retirement savings vanished like some day trade gone bad".

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2972732

So, do words and definitions matter? I think so. The difference between your refusal to use the term "negative numbers" and my refusal to use the term "free market" is about 11 Trillion dollars. Unfortuantely, many citizens seem to be content to fiddle while Rome burns. I'm sure George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc., were advised to make short shift of their rebellious stage because it would be a waste of their time. But the fact that they were willing to stand up for their rights, has benefited both of us greatly.

I made some more changes and added some links to the original post that take into consideration some of the comments objections. You might find them interesting. I would appreciate your opinion on the revisions. Be well and thanks for participating.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)