jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (17 posts)

A phenomonal assessment of the economy...

  1. SparklingJewel profile image69
    SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago

    pass it along to everyone you know...unless you can refute it...and i would like to see your proof put together as well.

    “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes… As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong it’s reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
                                     Abraham Lincoln

    http://theburningplatform.com/economy/t … omic-elite

    from this part 3:

    "I don’t view the Economic Elite as a small group of men who meet in secrecy to control the world. They do feature elements of conspiracy and are clearly composed of secretive organizations like the  Bilderberg Group - this is not a conspiracy theory, this is a conspiracy fact - but as a whole the Economic Elite are primarily united by ideology. They’re made up of thousands of individuals who subscribe to an ideology of exploitation and the belief that wealth and resources need to be concentrated into the fewest hands possible (theirs), at the expense of the many."

    parts 1 & 2 can be accessed from part 3

    there are research links from "conservative" and "liberal" sources...

  2. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    What a load.  Lincoln in this instance sounds little different than a modern Progressive airhead.  Not surprising, considering that he got his start in the Whig party.  The Whigs trace their roots back to the Federalist party and Alexander Hamilton in particular.  One thing that Lincoln doesn't talk about is how governmental power is really the only way you can concentrate economic power in the hands of an "economic elite".

    As for proof.  Well let's see.  The East India Trading Company was a Royal Charter joint-stock company that controlled England's trade with the East.  It became so powerful that it fielded an army made up of indigenous troops.  Not surprising considering that the Company was a de facto arm of the Crown.  They used their power to gain concessions over their competitors....hey this is sounding a lot like Goldman Sachs.

    1. SparklingJewel profile image69
      SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I was looking mainly for response to the linked article, not Lincoln...that was just a quote pre-heading the article...

      Did you read all three parts of the article?

  3. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    Most of it is a polemic against business, where it is not an out and out conspiracy theory rant.  I'm not really into reading about that kind of propaganda, so I skimmed it.  What the author doesn't realize is that in order to get those businesses on board, the government has to give out certain concessions.  If you read up on the FDR years, you see that he was a master at that.

    Let me use Workman's comp as an example.  In order to safeguard themselves against lawsuits, businesses signed on.  In giving up their right to sue, workers were supposedly given the medical care they needed.  The author of the article clearly wants a government takeover of healthcare and his arguments are all slated towards that goal.  Facts and assumptions be damned.

    I wonder how the author will see the election of Scott Brown?

    1. SparklingJewel profile image69
      SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The whole relationship between governments and businesses needs to change...we are not abiding by the concepts of Constitutional Law. All the freedom and liberty concepts have been tossed; That's the perspective I am trying to comprehend from...I guess that's the kind of response I was looking for...

      what can you say about that?

      and, I was impressed with his presentation of how the corrupt systems run...at least he sees that, if we can assume that the process he sees is as he says. AND does he have all the elites on the list...surely there are some missing hmm

      he is biased about the healthcare because he is Canadian...you think?

      1. ledefensetech profile image81
        ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        We need government totally out the economy.  You can't have it both ways.  Either you have a free economy where the customer is king, or you have a controlled economy where the government allocates resources according to the whims of those in power.

        1. SparklingJewel profile image69
          SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          what about some degree of regulations...for the protections of the people...that's per the Constitution

        2. Neil Sperling profile image88
          Neil Sperlingposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I agree --- We need the government out of almost everything. When you point our finger at government to bail us out of a problem, three fingers point right back at yourself..... and in so doing you give the government a direct path to your bank account to do with your money what ever they please. We need less government - not more!

          When we look to government to create jobs,,,, what they always create are more useless public servants that do a function that has no value to anyone!

          the only economy that has any honesty to it unfortunately is the underground. There your word is what you need ... and thus what you need to live up too.

  4. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    No it's not.  Show me where, in the Constitution, that it empowers Congress to look after the people and the decisions they  make.  Nothing compels someone to buy or consume something against their will, that's up to their personal choice and people need to be free to make that choice.  It also means that people will have the freedom to screw up, but that's better than the alternative.

    1. SparklingJewel profile image69
      SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ...one of the few limited powers of the government is to protect the people...is that just meant physically, not economically?

  5. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    Is that a quote from the Constitution?  No the government has no power to keep people from making decisions nor does it have the right to do so.  BTW I'd also argue that the government doesn't have the ability to protect people, that's up to individuals.  The best any sort of government agency can do is react to, not prevent any sort of violence against people.

    1. SparklingJewel profile image69
      SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      yes, it is all in how it is interpreted...that's for sure.

      there aren't enough people taking their individual responsibilities in decisions, be it ethically, morally, etc... the onus is on the people...

      but your statement is not entirely correct...several Articles put the onus on the state to protect property, and from invasion...that requires preventive measures

      there are also preventive measures within the very consciousness of the judges and in the  interpretations that judges make...also back on the individuals again to have right mindfulness from knowledge and study and life ethics to elect judges

      1. ledefensetech profile image81
        ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There is a difference between protecting property and making up laws to "protect" people from themselves.  We could get our prison population under control, for example, by eliminating vice crimes from the books.  Prostitutes and drug dealers are not deterred by the laws and, in the end, they only harm themselves by engaging in those practices. 

        Those preventative measures you talk about can only be done by individuals.  To allow a state to preempt things in the name of "protection" just opens us up to a police state.  Most of the arguments for the "general welfare" comes from the Preamble, which serves as an introduction to the Constitution, it does not assign any powers to the governmental body like the Articles do.

        1. Neil Sperling profile image88
          Neil Sperlingposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          LOL -- yip -- and a police state always gets so bogged down with rules and procedures. It wont be long and we will have to go to city hall and pay 15 dollars to get a permit to fart. After all, we are creating methane gas!

  6. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    Luckily with all the corruption that seems endemic to the global warming crowd, people are starting to get the idea that it's all a scam and real climatologists, long muzzled by their corrupt brethren, are speaking out.

    1. 0
      china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Global warming is a blanket thrown over the issues of mass species extinction and pollution, and all the rest of the planetary issues.

      People have a vested interest in looking after their environment, and pursuit of improvements are harmless and sometimes helpful.

      A tiny body of people, who the pursuit of improvement does NOT favour, control your job, your health provision, your housing, your environment, et., etc., but most importantly they control your media.  You can buy into the media 'blacking' of a subject or person or you can see through it to the gain of the people behind it.  It works like the quote about paranoia:
      I may be paranoid but that doesn't mean the bastards aren't out to get me!
      I guess standing back and looking at the big picture - like deforestation, extinction of species, wars for oil, pollution, sky high taxes - you have to make a judgement call about this kind of argument and consider who does the media favour and why - before thinking about the issue itself. People try to make capital or money from even good causes, just look at religion for example.

  7. Sab Oh profile image61
    Sab Ohposted 6 years ago

    I think there was some conspiracy theory in there somewhere