jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (13 posts)

1% relieved Obama is President, and not Ron Paul

  1. innersmiff profile image87
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    Stirring the pot a little bit with this hopefully.

    http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/but-i-thou … -business/

    Since Wall Street is the main beneficiary of the Fed through bailouts and money printing, a sound-money advocate Ron Paul Presidency would spell disaster for the 1%. They can rest easy, because Fed-lover Obama has got another 4 years. This is because, actually, the banksters would much rather pay more taxes under Obama just so long as they can get trillions of dollars of free money from the Fed every year.

    1. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The 1 percent made money when the US was on a goldstandard,and the captains of industry thrived. The 1 percent makes money in inflation and deflation. The 1 percent rules. The only way the 1 percent was weakened was when the US ruled the world after WW2, and we rebuilt the world.

      The 1 percent doesn't get money directly from the Fed. The Fed dollars sit as excess reserves on the books of the banks. This gives the banks confidence to lend to the wealthy, who buy houses with cash and speculate with cash in the futures markets. But Obama is fighting that speculation by threatening to unleash our oil reserves. It drove the price of oil down.

      Romney would be worse than Obama, and Ron Paul would destroy the 30 year fixed mortgage,which may be on its last legs anyway.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      By free do you mean loans the vast majority of which have already been paid back?

      But more to the point yes I think most of the country is relieved that Ron Paul is not president, on the other hand I think the "1%" (I hate that term) is probably the least relieved, while federal loans might be more difficult under Ron Paul the free for all that would ensure from his policies woul benefit the "1%" enormously as the old quote goes.

      For the weak and the hungry "freedom" is oppression and laws give liberty.

      1. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree, freedom to the libertarian is to allow no regulation of the bankers and to allow racism as a civil right! Not so free if you are on the wrong end of the "freedom".

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Precisely, those laws were introduced for a reason, for most it comes down to a question of having their lives controlled by a company, a corporation, a rich man all of whom have profit as their main aim OR a government they elect and control whose main aim is to please the people so it will be chosen again, to me the choice will always be obvious.

      2. innersmiff profile image87
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The choice is between living one's own life, being controlled by no-one, and interacting with institutions who's financial wellbeing is based on my preferences, or being ruled by those corporations through law, which is what the government is. With the first I have a choice, the second I do not. I can leave the country, but I don't count being forced to leave my own home a "choice".

        But I'm not bothered what you choose. You can choose the latter if you want, just so long as you don't force others to live how you see fit.

        Racism by itself is not a civil right, but freedom of speech is, and so is the right to free association. Yes, unfortunately, this means that businesses have the right to hire only one particular race or gender. However, we also have the right not to associate with those businesses. Would you work for an openly racist business owner? Would you buy from an openly racist business? Obviously not, along with the majority of others  - if you're denying this, then the law you want to pass has no democratic legitimacy, since there is no majority - on the other hand, if you agree with this, there is no point in passing a law because the business has alienated the majority of its potential customers and received the appropriate punishment. There is no intellectual basis for this kind of law other than "this is bad, therefore it should be illegal".

        You're probably thinking: what could possibly go wrong with a law banning businesses from discriminating based on race? At the very least, it sets a precedent that one does not have the right to free association on his private property, which is a dangerous precedent to make.


        The Federal Reserve is the single institution that allows the centralisation of money and power in Wall Street. Without it, the big banks are finished. The money that the Fed gives to the banks is payed back, yes, but it is given out at 0% interest, and before giving it back they've loaned it to customers at say 3% interest, thus allowing these massive banks in the Wall Street cartel to expand at a rate far greater than any competition. As long as the banks in this small group expand at an equal rate, they are happy. They are the first to receive the newly printed Fiat money, therefore not suffering the resulting inflation as do smaller companies. The ones that suffer most from inflation are the very poorest. Lastly, the Fed gives these banks a very powerful insurance policy, paid for by the tax payer: the assumption that they will be bailed out if things go wrong.

        A free-for-all would actually result in less cartelisation because competition to the biggest banks would be legalised, and since Wall Street will actually have to provide a proper service to customers to make money, instead of bribing government, we'll have a much less corrupt financial sector.

        For more information, please read The Case Against The Fed by Murray Rothbard, a pamphlet you can read online in a couple of hours that will lay it all out and hopefully immunise yourself against central banking forever:

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          See the first point is a complete fantasy, people never live controlled by no one as a society, the strongest and richest or most violent are always there to seize power, in Somalia that was the Mafias, in the past it has been petty warlords, companies, plantation owners you name it, the way the people defend themselves against that exploitation is to appoint people to prevent those groups from exploiting them, preferably a democratic government so they can control it. The same goes for consumer pressure creating anti racism, firstly the laws were passed so that in areas where racism still exists companies still have to hire people of other races because that is right, as you said having to leave your home (in this case to find a job) is not freedom but in a system with no governance there is very quickly no free speech either as it's not protected by the law and thus any large body with money and thus power like a company can quash it and any criticisms at will.

          The Federal bank does make competition slightly harder and is even potentially corruptible but it's injection of funds an control of the market leads to much greater growth and much smaller crashes which is why it is quite simply the lesser of two evils.

          1. innersmiff profile image87
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The strongest richest and most violent people are always there to seize power, agreed, and the most effective way to do it is to do it under the pretence of being for the public good, i.e. the government. The government allows these people to be stronger, richer and more violent then they could have by themselves. Modern society is the most governed and centralised society in history, and also happens to be the most violent: 1900-1999, 'Democide' (death by government) claimed 262 million deaths, not including war deaths, themselves a product of governments in the modern age.

            This person who is being discriminated against doesn't necessarily have to leave his home - most likely he will simply have to work at another business. The person's natural rights have not been violated - the business owner was simply exercising his right to free association (and alienating a huge section of the workforce, which you fail to recognise).

            The implications of the 'social contract' are that if one doesn't like the government molesting their person and private property, they have to leave the country. Even if this wasn't ridiculously expensive already, they are still subject to expatriation taxes, making emigration all but infeasible for anyone who isn't rich. There is no implicit agreement in the 'social contract' simply because you were born in a particular place. Many people, in fact, are explicitly saying "No, I do not want in to this social contract". Thus, the government can not be said to be born out of collective agreement. It's a highwayman sticking you up, taking your money, giving something you didn't want in return, and saying it's for the 'good of the people'.

            Who said that there isn't law? The common law, that everybody benefits from, provides for protection of civil liberties: speech, association, private property, etc., and only that. If someone wanted to censor me there are institutions that can protect my freedom of speech simply because there is demand for it. Any business censoring my speech I'm not going to deal with - I simply move to another one. It's why I use Vimeo rather than Youtube for my videos. The government doesn't do anything to stop censorship on Youtube and Google because that's not their game: they love censorship and can't set a precedent for protecting speech because that would mean they couldn't use censorship in the future. The government, to protect their illegitimate dealings, require censorship otherwise they'd be finished.


            It makes competition slightly harder? How about illegal? Potentially corruptible? How about corrupt by nature? Not only is the Fed unaccountable to the demands of customers, as in independent institution it's unaccountable to Congress as well. Why is it allowed to exist? Only now have we at least got some monitoring of the Fed, but it's pathetic.

            Even if you actually believe its beneficial to the economy (again, read the pamphlet) it's illegitimate as a company and as a government institution.

    3. Hollie Thomas profile image59
      Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If this is true and they would rather have Obama, why did they pump their money into his opposition?

      1. innersmiff profile image87
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think the 1% would mildly prefer Romney over Obama, but Obama's corporate contributions exceed Paul's tenfold, making the real question: "why are corporations so afraid of Ron Paul?". Simply put, big government in whatever form is far more profitable for the banksters and the military-industrial-complex than small government.

        Assuming Obama doesn't represent big money is rather naive, in my opinion.

  2. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago

    The Fed has problems now. "Show me the money" wink
    Look for the silver doctors article

    http://twitter.com/search?q=http%3A%2F% … pection%2F

    1. innersmiff profile image87
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Oh shoot!

      I love these 'the emperor isn't wearing any clothes!' moments.

  3. innersmiff profile image87
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    "freedom is oppression and laws give liberty."


    Ever read 1984?