-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.

"I define capitalism".

You said "I define capitalism as a competitive market economy based on the rule of law". That is why you and I can't come to an agreement. You are creating your own definition.
Here is the second paragraph of the wikipedia article on capitalism. "There are multiple variants of capitalism, including laissez-faire, welfare capitalism and state capitalism"
Regardless of how you define it by yourself, it is unrealistic to argue with a person whom you know is asking you to see the definition of the term we are arguing, while you are using your own special definition. Even Websters dictionary says capitalism refers to ownership of the means of production which is only "mostly" private.
Despite what you personally want the word to mean, it is polite to debate terms true meaning according to social norms. Unfortunately, capitalism is currently socially defined differently than you have defined it, thus, I feel the need clarify which type of capitalist I am. Is that so hard to grasp. You can't spend all night debating me while secretly having your own personal definition. If you'd looked up the definition when I asked you to, you'd have seen we were both working with two separate definitions.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

because it's not the same thing.

Us "free market" weirdos believe that individuals should have 100% ownership of our means of production. That includes our labor, our land, our bodies, and our ideas. China has "market capitalism" or as many would call it "state sponsored capitalism". All capitalism refers to is the "means of production". So market capitalism isn't really descriptive enough to differentiate the idea that I should own my capital "means of production", from the idea that the state should own the means of production "statism" or "state sponsored capitalism". In the USA we don't have free market capitalism. The state can take a percentage of my earnings from my labor. THey can take a percentage of my earnings from my land (property tax), and they can do many other things which give them the power over my means of production. So even in the USA, capitalism is state sponsored rather than free market.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Now we're making some progress

Free market disciples are trying to redefine communism as capitalism. Snakepit says Communist China's economy is "market capitalism" or "state capitalism". First of all, the Communist Party runs China with an iron fist. It's not called the "Market Capitalism Party" or the "State Capitalism Party", its the COMMUNIST PARTY. At least the Chinese are willing to honest about their ideology. The Chinese economy is dominated by State owned companies and the Communist Party requires a 51% controlling interest in foreign companies operating in China.

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

Look up the definition of capitalism.

You will see that it means the "private ownership of the means of production". If every means of production had only one owner, then you'd only need one definition, however, consider this. If I own 60% of a company, and you own 40%, I still own it, right? But you still own it as well, you just don't own controlling interest in it. So, if I own 60% and the government owns 40%, then I own it, but the government also owns it as well, so if we are talking about my ownership in the "means of produciton, or my labor", then if I own most of it, I'm a capitalist, but not all of that ownership is private, so it needs a disclaimer. I own most of it, but the state owns 40% so it isn't pure capitalism, it is state capitalism. If I own 100% then it is pure, or laissaez-faire capitalism, where we go just by the strict definition, "private ownership of the means of production. However, because ownership can be split, and taxation is the way our government splits our ownership of our capital, we cannot simply have one definition, and claim that we are "capitalists". We must admit that just like China, the state owns part of the means of production and so we are not just capitalist, we are state sponsored capitalist. The distinction is very reasonably necessarry. It isn't just something we are hiding by, as you have said.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

You're contradicting yourself, again, and again, and again

Earlier you said China's economy, which is dominated by State owned companies, is "market capitalism". Now you're saying capitalism means "the private ownership of the means of production". Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive.

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

Come on now Mark.

Is there only one species of turtle? or are there many types? Can you claim that a red eared slider is the same as a sea turtle simply because they are both turtles? Capitalism has different varieties. You are trying to ignore that. China's government has a percentage ownership in their means of production, just like the US government does. The means of production for most of the economy is still private, but the state in each country has a percentage. In China that percentage is just larger than in the US. As I explained, 100% private ownership means free market or laissez-faire. When that percentage is lower than 100% private, it is something else. Usually it is a percent private, and a percent owned by the state. It is still called capitalism because private ownership makes up a large part, unlike a system of lords and kings or something where royalty owns the land, and workers etc. and the peasants own nothing. And while I"m at it, I'm not trying to decieve you Mark. Either you are embarrassed that you are wrong, so you are being a jerk, or we just aren't communicating well enough to understand each other. However, the sheer amount of typing I"m doing should at least convince you I actually believe what I'm saying and have put many years of thought into it. I'm not just trying to lie to you because I'm an asshole. I am however starting to feel stupid for wasting so much of my time trying to convince you when it seems you have no respect for my opinion and havne't the slightest ability to consider my views.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Its not the quantity of typing, its the quality, or lack of

Now you're talking about red eared sliders vs. sea turtles? That's a thread to far for me, my BS detector is on overload.

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

We might be making progress....

..however, was Russia any less capitalist or any more communist when it was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Hell, they even claimed to be "republics" as well as socialists. The fact that communism dominates their landscape doesn't change the definition of capitalism. Again, capitalism simply means "the means of production". It has many varying forms, from state capitalism to free market or laissez-faire. Private ownership of production is a key element, however the variations come when other parties such as the state get involved in that ownership. More of China's economy is owned by the state than the US' economy, however, China's economy still exists very much of privately owned companies or means of production. In the US, without even considering the bailouts, the tax code by itself means that the government owns at least a part of every transaction that takes place. THey own a percentage of your pay, your companies profit, your home, your purchases, etc. Throw back in the fact that the government essentially buys companies by bailing them out, and runs them through corporate favors and tax codes, means that we are not any different from China when it comes to being state sponsored capitalists. The only difference is the percent tax the companies pay, thus the percentage that the state "owns" the means of production. Neither system is laissez-fair. We are only slightly less state sponsored capitalist than they are. But to say that their is no difference between types of capitalism, or to say that China is not capitalist, well, that is simply a gross misunderstanding of what capitalism is. Linking Laissez-faire, or free market capitalism with what we have in the United Sates is no more ridiculous than saying that China or Russia is free market capitalist. Saying that China and Russia are capitalist, however, so long as you clarify that they are state sponsored capitalist, is extremely accurate.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Good point, look at the reality behind the words

That's what I've been saying all along, just because someone calls themself a free market capitalist, it doesn't mean they support the principles of capitalism, or freedom, in the sense intended by our founding documents.

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)

in addition..

...take that to the extreme, if I own my "means of production", which means my body, doesn't that mean nobody else can steal my body (murder me, enslave me, etc). Even though free market capitalism isn't specifically talking about basic laws such as a speed limit, no raping people, no murder, no polution, etc., if you reason out most "just" laws, they stem from the idea that the individual should have ownership over their body. You should't be allowed to rape me, to kill me by polluting my air (my air, not some random air on your land), to steal from me, because my body, my land, my belongings are all part of my "means of production" and my "capital". So when we cling to the ideas of a free market, it is because the ideology behind it supports the concept of a society in which individuals are free to own their selves and only give up their property if they mutually agree to with another person. This is the libertarian "utopia", a world where I am free to do what I want so long as I don't interfere with anyone else's means of production, ie. their body, labor, land, ideas, etc.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

PS

You guys are starting to confuse "industry leader" with "monopoly". You can't say someone has a monopoly simply because they make a lot of money and are the industry leader. If you can keep all competetors out, then you have a monopoly. Only the government has the power to keep all competitors out, that is why companies seek government help in slanting the playing field. However, when the government intervenes, you have "state sponsored capitalism" or "corporatism". You don't have "free market capitalism".

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

I got history all day bro!

Standard Oil never owned 100% of the market. And when J Rock was at his height, JP Morgan was able to develop in home electricity which was the key competitor to Rockefellers kerosene. Like I just said, if a powerful company begins to act like a monopoly, the market will introduce a competetor. In Rockefeller's case, he didn't have a monopoly, just a very large percentage of the market, but even with that, the market was open for JP to invest in Tesla and Edison's AC and DC and replace kerosene lamps with in home electricity.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Incredible, literally

Rockefeller was vertically integrated, i.e., he controlled the production, wholesale, and retail components of the oil industry. No credible source disputes that Rockefeller had the ability to prevent competitive pressure on price. But he wasn't stupid, he understood that too high a price would cut into his profits so he set prices according to what the market could bear.

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

Good example

A good example to beat the libertarian up is James Hill.....he had monopolies.

Are you serious?

The railroad guy? Like I said earlier, show me a "monopoly" and I'll show you how the government had it's hand in it. Railroads used government force to steal people's land "eminent domain", which is hardly consistent with the free market. The railroads weren't a complete monopoly anyhow, but as a very strong industry leader, the top railroads always used government force to gain an unfair advantage, and thus, by definition, they are not an example of monopolies in a free market.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Very

Hill monopolized many industries, none lasting a long time. Same with Vanderbilt, he had a monopoly on ferries in New York. He ran the government out of business and owned the market....then it disappeared.

Hill built his Great Northern railroad without imminent domain or tax dollars.

Rockefeller used government force, Hill did not.

and it was a monopoly how?

folks like to say "he had a monopoly" on this or that, but never really explain how it was a monopoly. Being the first person to put tracks somewhere doesn't mean you have a monopoly. You even said how his industries didn't last long. What you fail to mention is why they didn't last and who were their competitors. Stage coaches were always a competitor to railroads until railroads were so cheap and efficient that stage coaches were not used anymore. But at no point did the railroads have a monopoly on transportation of goods and people. They simply overtook the statecoach market and eventually cars, trucks and planes arose to compete with rail, just as rail competed with stage coaches. Railways are still a cheap way to transport heavy goods, so they are still around even though we have other ways to transport people and goods. HOwever, if railroads acted like monopolies and jacked prices too high, it would create more market room for cargo planes, boats, semi-trucks, etc. The market has always had room for competition, whether it was stage coaches or trucks and planes. It has never been a monopoly, and the only reason it has thrived has been that it has been cheap enough for people to use.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Great Northern

His railroad was not a monopoly. He did, in fact, obtain monopoly in other endeavors.....like coal. He also monopolized industry along his rail lines, temporarily.
Innovation and consumer driven monopolies are benign.

temporary why?

A temporary monopoly is not a monopoly. That is like saying that I have monopolized the use of my TV. I watch what I want and don't let anyone else watch. But how long can I do that? Only as long as I can stay awake, and then someone else gets to watch. The "monopoly" only exists for a short time because it takes a short time for the market to produce the competition. If you use that definition of a monopoly, then you could say that the Wright Brothers "monopolized" the airplane industry, simply because for a short time, they were the only ones to have a working plane. They didn't have the ability to really monopolize the industry however, they were just the only ones for a small amount of time who actually had the technology. Railways, coal, oil, Microsoft, etc. never had a monopoly on anything. They were at times the industry leader, or at times when an invention came about, the first to have the technology, however that time was brief because the market created competitors.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

It is what it is

Exactly, a monopoly occurs often and especially the local varieties. Monopolies are not by default or nature predatory. In fact they are usually quite helpful in bringing innovation to the market.
It is a monopoly....and it cant last forever without force.

I agree 100%

I think you and I are on the same page. They can't exist forever without force, and they bring about innovation and change. With that in mind, I'm perfectly fine with the idea that monopolies exist. It's when people think that the government needs to intervene and break them up in order to protect the consumer, that is where I begin to say that what they are trying to break up is not a monopoly, and is not abusive to the customer.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

He did that, too

With the power of the creation of currency and debt from thin air and the force of government.......
He was a domestic enemy of the US Constitution.

PS

Monopolies are a fiction of the left. If a company had a monopoly, and they started to "abuse" the customer with high prices, that action alone would create the market conditions for a competetor to emerge. Thus, a large company would only raise prices so much until the market demanded a competetor, so likely, they wouldn't be raising them so much that it would constitute "abuse". Show me a monopoly, and I'll show you how government intervention either created it, or how it wasn't actually a monopoly.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Maybe you should read a little history

It's a historical fact that John D. Rockeller said "competition is a sin" and he had the ability to prevent competitors from entering the market he had monopolized.

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

You are correct...

JD Rockefeller did say that and he believed it.
He was not a Constitutionalists, nor did he practice free market capitalism.

Good point.

anyway,

my comment above, about JP morgan and standard oil was intended as the reply to this comment. I guess I forgot to put it in the right spot.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Free Market Capitalism

Free Market Capitalism is what I am referring to when I say "free market". All I'm referring to is a market in which I have 100% ownership of my means of production or capital. Unalienable rights are essential for a system in which I have ownership of my capital, my labor, my ideas, my property, etc. Free market doesn't mean anarchy. It means that the government doesn't have any claim to my capital or property. A free market is one in which individuals own their property and can enter into voluntary contracts to exchange that property. It has nothing to do with anarchy.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

More double talk

Markets are either completely free from all laws, morals, ethics and concepts of rights, or not. You cannot have it both ways. The "free" market concept is a Wall Street con job designed to place themselves above the law and exempt themselves from the rules of capitalism. Like I said in my post, Too Big To Fail (TBTF) is not capitalism precisely because the rules of capitalism aren't being applied. But if you listen to Wall Street hacks on CNBC like Larry Krudlow, they insist that the Fed's QE to infinity (a massive market interventon) and TBTF are "free market captialism".

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

Wall Street....

Wall Street does not practice free market capitalism.
They are a product of federal government rules and regulations.

Thieves, yes
Frauds, yes

Capitalist, no
Free market, hell no

Come on, Mark....are you really suggesting Wall Street is a product of free market capitalism ?

Only if by free they mean anarchy...

and I truly believe they (Wall Street hacks) mean anarchy. That's why I adamantly reject the terms free trade and free market, and insist on defining capitalism as a competitive market economy based on the rule of law. I have no problem dropping the word free from market capitalism because doing otherwise only muddys the linguistic waters, and ambiguous language only serves Wall Street's purposes. Countering slick, big money PR campaigns generated by Wall Street criminals requires clarity and repetition.

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)