Rock 'N' Roll 'N' Politics...GM, Amtrak and an Increasingly Fascist America (Ron Paul)
-
Artist:
-
Track:
Last week, General Motors finally declared bankruptcy. Many in government thought $20 billion in taxpayer dollars would save the company, but as predicted, it only postponed the inevitable. The government will dump another $30 billion into GM and take a 60 percent controlling interest for it. Public officials are now involving themselves in tactical business decisions such as where GM's headquarters should move and what kind of cars it will build.
The promise that this is temporary and will eventually be profitable is supposed to ease the American people into accepting this arrangement, but it is of little comfort to those who remember similar promises when the American taxpayers bought Amtrak. After three years, government was supposed to be out of the passenger rail business. 40 years and billions of dollars later, the government is still operating Amtrak at a loss, despite the fact that they have created a monopoly by making it illegal to compete with Amtrak. Imagine what they can now do to what is left of the great American auto industry!
In a truly free market, GM would get your money one way and one way only - by selling you a car you want, at a price you are willing to pay. Instead, the government is giving public money to a private company in spite of the market signals it has been sending. Throwing money at GM does not stop it from being an engine of wealth destruction; on the contrary, it simply gives it more wealth to destroy.
Had it been allowed to fail naturally, the profitable pieces of GM would have been bought up and put to good use by now. The laid off employees would likely have found new jobs and all that capital would be in private hands, reinvested in companies that produce products demanded by consumers. Instead, we are all poorer now.
Political pressure, rather than the rule of law, is deciding how to divide up the remains of GM. The bondholders had billions in retirement savings invested in the company, and though they were entitled to nearly three times as much as the United Auto Workers, the bondholders were left with just a 10 percent stake compared to the union's 17.5 percent stake. For their 60 percent stake, taxpayers have a future of constant bailouts to look forward to.
Comingling public control of private business is known as fascism. While today's politicians may feel emboldened with all their new power, history will only repeat itself as all this collapses on itself. It is the height of hubris for bureaucrats and politicians to attempt to control the market and the freewill of the American people. In the end, the market always wins out. Maybe one day future generations will wise up and allow free markets to function and thrive without the albatross of government around its neck. For now, it looks like those in charge have not learned the lessons of the past, and have doomed us to repeat those mistakes once again.
-Ron Paul-
Comments (51)
And here's where Ron and I completely disagree..Here's the thing..if no one wants to start up a rail line does that mean it is a bad idea? When all rail lines were private, was that any better?
He is not talking in the real world..
"In a truly free market, GM would get your money one way and one way only - by selling you a car you want, at a price you are willing to pay"
A truly free market can only happen in a textbook.
Mr. Paul is in an academic dream world here and ,of course, it won't be easy to change people's minds when he comes right out and calls what well meaning people do fascism.
Cody...: Well one thing I've learned, if there's a need it's usually filled by someone. I think a lot of people think this way already. So far here's what our Gov. been doing with our $.
CodyB, I fail to understand your premise.
"In a truly free market, GM would get your money one way and one way only - by selling you a car you want, at a price you are willing to pay"
A truly free market can only happen in a textbook.
.....Each of these is a bold assertion & I totally agree with the first.
And i totally agree with the second.
....if your lookin for perfection dude, forget it. But the answer isn't Nationalizing the Financial industry,or the Automobile industry, the answer is not a bail-out for the very unions that helped drive the industry into such disrepute among discerning car-buyers, while creditors, who by law must be paid off first, are left sucking hind teat.
This stinks. And it'll get worse.
The following is from George Will:
'I want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy med dling in the private sector," said the president, who's inordinately fond of the first-person singular pronoun. He said that in March, when the government already owned 80 percent of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "When a difficult decision has to be made on matters like where to open a new plant or what type of new car to make, the new GM, not the United States government, will make that decision," he said. But the government is GM's largest shareholder, customer, tax collector, regulator, partner in determining employees' compensation, protector of dealers and pension guarantor. GM's other large owner, the United Auto Workers, is increasingly a government dependant. Yet Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom, two of the president's fixers of Detroit, recently wrote in USA Today that government "will play no role" in running GM. They were not under oath. "What we are not doing -- what I have no interest in doing -- is running GM," says the president who, when not firing GM's CEO, purging its board of directors and picking new members, is designing new products (imposing fuel-economy requirements that will control size, weight, passenger capacity and safety). The president, overcoming his professed reluctance to run GM, resembles the journalist Don Marquis when, after a month on the wagon, he ordered a double martini and exclaimed: "I've conquered my goddamn willpower." Washington mandates that Detroit build cars for which there is much less demand than Washington demands that there be. Then Washington tries to manufacture demand with a $7,500 tax credit for purchasers of the electric Chevrolet Volt, supposedly GM's salvation. So GM is to be saved by a product people won't buy with a cash incentive larger than the income tax paid by 83.4 percent of America's families. It is reasonable to assume that GM will become profitable -- if you make unreasonable assumptions about annual vehicle sales and GM's share of the market. Besides, the government that runs Amtrak (which has lost $23 billion, in today's dollars, just since 1990) vows to make GM efficient. But one reason Amtrak runs on red ink is that legislators treat it as their toy-train set, preventing it from cutting egregiously unprofitable routes. Will Congress passively accept auto-plant-closing decisions? Rattner says Washington's demure vow is: "No plant decisions, no dealer decisions, no color-of-the-car decisions." He is one-third right. Last week, under the headline "Senators Blast Automakers Over Dealer Closings," The Washington Post reported, "Because the federal government is slated to own most of General Motors and 8 percent of Chrysler, some of the senators said they have a responsibility, as major shareholders do, to review company decisions." The pressure to politicize the economy is spreading. AFL-CIO chief John Sweeney and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees head Gerald McEntee have demanded the resignation of two Citigroup directors. Their premise is that businesses receiving direct government subventions should conform to the president's allies' wishes. GM is adopting new ways to lose money: Responsive to its UAW masters, GM is moving from China to America the production of some components of one Chevrolet model. Says UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, "It should be built here if it's going to be sold here." That principle, now successfully asserted, means economic autarky -- the end of international trade, and of prosperity. The government's $50 billion (so far) acquisition of the shadow of GM will injure, with unfair financial advantages, the surprisingly healthy US auto company, Ford. Of course, the government doesn't intend that injury, any more than it intended to cause protests in Mexico over the high price of corn tortillas, a result of Washington's mandate that Americans burn corn (ethanol) in their cars. The administration is determined to prop up GM as a jobs program for the UAW and Midwestern states rich in electoral votes. This frenzy will intensify as the administration's decisions deepen the debacle. georgewill@washpost.com
deadman...: Glad you got to post Jeff!
CodyB: Yea what Jeff said...
;)
I guess all we can agree on is to disagree..also, are you trying to tell me that Mr.Stossel is presenting a balanced view? Stossel is a libertarian mouthpiece.
DMDM..I guess you don't like unions very much, but we've had that discussion before . I'm not going down that road again. Although you are making it seem like the unions caused the mess. I think you are wrong.
Everyone says they want to reduce the size of government from Ron Paul to Barack Obama. But everytime someone takes something away there is a problem and complaints.
As a country we don't have the stones to be socialist or libertarian. George Will is almost into conspiracy theory land with his stuff..the unions are not running this country, unions are shrinking left anf right, but folks like to bust their chops a lot.
My wife is representing steel workers in the GM bankruptcy who stand to lose their pensions in this debacle, so I'm no fan of the bailouts. Those cats worked there entire careers for something they had in a contract, that they paid in for, and that they are not going to receive. I bet Mr. Stossel doesn't do a story on that.
I get where you guys are coming from..less goverment, more free trade, lower taxes, folks paying charity as needed,open markets. I just don't think it'll work here in the USA. I understand it on paper, but I don't believe it in practice. When folks jump to calling whats happening now fascism, socialism, and nationalization, and try to pin it on Barack it doesn't help their cause for revolutionizing they way things are done. Isn't it a little over the top?
So in the sober moments, when we really look at this...if the Republicans won the election, would things really be much different right now? Perhaps they would,perhaps not but people from the left would be using nearly the same words as George Will to describe how poorly the goverment was handling things no matter what was happening.
So can you tell me what would happen if GM just simply closed its doors and sold off whatever it could? (BTW-I don't think a Republican administration would have let that happen either).
In the end I think the point is missed in the -ism name calling. By taking all these events on a case by case basis we don't end up having a debate on what it is we the people want government to do. That's the debate we need to have.
I know where you guys fall on this, but it would be interesting to see where everybody is. do we really want reduced government? Do we want less inspectors of meat plants and self regulating industry whose tortes against consumers will be punished by "the invisible hand."? Do we want a Space Program? Do we need more weapons? Should air traffic be controlled by individual states? Should we have privately owned highways? Should there be laws against monopolies?
I dunno, there are a lot of questions to go over. Did the goverment seek to get into the train business? Or was it filling a need no one else could afford to fill? Shouldn't there be more trains and less cars? Or should the market dictate the numbers of trains and cars? Should the government be involved in decreasing the amount of pollution? Or can "the invisible hand" clean the air in Los Angeles?
Do you think that what we end up doing in any of these cases points toward anything but the democracy that we have? There are lots of ideas for solutions to these problems and our little meat grinder of a system seems to disappoint everyone at one time or another.
It seems like the conservative or liberal side on any argument immediately starts pointing fingers at the other side when things don't go their way. I seem to remember liberals calling George Bush an imperialist or fascist or racist just a few short years ago. Now the shoe is on the other foot and the insults are nearly the same. Is that just the nature of the beast?
anybody got any extra plutonium?
i can fix it all.....
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if you really want to "change things in Washington" it will take a lot more than throwing one of the established parties out of power..both will have to go if everybody is going to be "happy."
ditto and amen
i think "i am a re-pub-i-can"
and "i am a demo-crap" is fucking WHAT is wrong with America
do what the fuck is best for the people you stupid fucking asshat dumb fuck ducks
Ray -> in the first video you posted in response to Cody -> I gotta say it is very scary that there isn't somthing being done about, and I quote,
"a few politicians in charge of literally trillions of dollars...this is what you find in a lot of corrupt 3rd world governments...and that's the road America's government is on" ->
Revolt!!! but no, you got to many faggy college freaks, thinking they're being hippies, voting when not properly informed or don't actually research what candidates actually say, and get pissed when you present facts to their flimsy arguments of heresay and lies that they know nothing about -> "well, he's a great charismatic speaker" so was f^cking Hitler you sorry f^cker -> if that's the only reason you vote for someone is because he's a different race or because he speaks well in public you should be beaten to death ->
the last video, explaining how over 200 people tried to go through the 'painless and easy' registration form for becoming a documented party or group inorder to make slogan-shirts-and-signs to state your 1st amendment given opinion -> that EVERY ONE OF THEM FAILED, as in broke the law on the forms, didn't properly execute the forms while following a government issued instruction manual for the forms, and hence weren't legally allowed to state their opinion as a group or individuals ->
So that's giving the already over zealous greedy corrupt pigs not only a better advantage, but a guaranteed win at oppressing the truth in a lot of these cases -> folks can't even legally enter in a petition to save their town from Annexation (well they did in this case).
If these fines are so true, then it seems very likely that a political campaign party can sue me, or have me fined because my family put slogan signs in our front lawn for their competitor in the election race, just because I didn't read a 500 page instruction manual and register for "permission from the government" to state my views or opinion...
But yeah, in agreement with Cody, no one will be happy with small changes -> "it will take a lot more than throwing one of the established parties out of power..both will have to go if everybody is going to be "happy."
The corruption -> it runs DEEP -> and it runs FAR -> and apparently it runs HARD too
CodyB:
"also, are you trying to tell me that Mr.Stossel is presenting a balanced view? Stossel is a libertarian mouthpiece."
I don't know what you mean by Srossel presenting an un balanced viewpoint. I think the Libertarian party has a lot of good things to say, I considered myself one till recently. I didn't like Bob Barr as their canidate, plus there are some things I don't agree with.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if you really want to "change things in Washington" it will take a lot more than throwing one of the established parties out of power..both will have to go if everybody is going to be "happy."
I have to agree with you on that, but at the sametime the parties haven't really been what they should be. That's why you have Neo-cans, & RINO's now.
"My wife is representing steel workers in the GM bankruptcy who stand to lose their pensions in this debacle, so I'm no fan of the bailouts. Those cats worked there entire careers for something they had in a contract, that they paid in for, and that they are not going to receive. I bet Mr. Stossel doesn't do a story on that. I get where you guys are coming from..less goverment, more free trade, lower taxes, folks paying charity as needed,open markets. I just don't think it'll work here in the USA. I understand it on paper, but I don't believe it in practice. When folks jump to calling whats happening now fascism, socialism, and nationalization, and try to pin it on Barack it doesn't help their cause for revolutionizing they way things are done. Isn't it a little over the top?"
Well unions could be good or bad. When I worked as a custodian for a school district we had a pretty good union, before that I was a printer for 10 years, no union. The industry went down the tubes. In fact Apple & Micro soft came out with programs like Corel that worked better & are still is used today. Printing Co. clients are many busnisess that need long runs now a days. In between the transician from manual to the computer software type of printing, There was a system I think it was called Sytec. It lasted only 2 years, they had schools for it for about that long. In the end a lot of us printers lost our jobs, or the company went out of business. When I was working as a custodian I noticed a lot of ex-printers starting to work as custodians. Working for the school district also presented a lot of oppotunities, like advancing to didffrent positions. Making more money in the end. This was a state\city ran position, which seemed to work in the system that exist now. Not federally ran.
"It seems like the conservative or liberal side on any argument immediately starts pointing fingers at the other side when things don't go their way."
Very true, but you can't broad brush them all like this. You have a lot of RINO's & Neocons in the mix. I think Obama is a Neocon IMO.
(sorry for any typo's)
Pimp: There is always someone under that hat. or ideologies. Everyone has one whether they know it or not. But your right in the end we are just Americans. Guess we all like to label our view points in a nice neat system.
;)
Tyler: John Stossel is great, I want say he's a LINO (libertarian in name only) lol. Which I think I was in the end. Of course they share a lot of the same views of what republicans should be. They hold to a lot of Ron Pauls views. There's also the constitution party that I haven't checked out, but I hear some good things about. They sound like a better version of the Libertatian party from what I've heard from friends.
CodyB: You can e-mail John Stossel, & maybe he'll do a piece on Union workers. Or at least try & answer your questions.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/
To "broad brush": Well the way TV covers these things is with a broad brush,,I agree that there are nuanced positions, but what we hear about is the pitched battle..R vs. D, Lib vs. Con, and in those battles (especially at pundit level) the gloves come off pretty quick.
I am wondering if anyone in this thread has actually lived and worked in Detroit. I was a bricklayer and worked on many of the furnaces of the steel mills there. I have first hand knowledge of what its like to spend you whole life in these factories. I spent over ten years doing it. Most of the workers have not survived beyond 10 years of their retirement without major health issues. Of course I was union. Detroit has many problems and they are all interwoven with history of of the automobile. I really don't know what the solution really is. However, I think I would side on Codys evaluation more than anyone else.
"unions are shrinking left anf right, but folks like to bust their chops a lot."
You're corect in that CodyB ....except in the private sector where the union grows annually by leaps & bounds. THESE are the unions that have soured Mainstream America on unions. But not to worry...Card Check legislation will fix all that. (The unions that own the Dems will get the last laugh)
"To "broad brush": Well the way TV covers these things is with a broad brush,,I agree that there are nuanced positions, but what we hear about is the pitched battle..R vs. D, Lib vs. Con, and in those battles (especially at pundit level) the gloves come off pretty quick."
True, & I think one of the biggest problems is blurred lines. But sometimes when the gloves come off, diffrent hats seem to be put on.
Sorry, I'm one to let GM go out of business. I think everyone should get a servance package, & retraining if needed. I think the bailout/taxpayers money is better spent there. I could never understand why American cars can't be as good or better than say Toyota's. I think a lot of American auto makers dug their own grave.
One bad thing I'll say about unions, & this isn't aimed at anyone here. But in my experiance, it seems to benefit a lot of bad lazy workers that seem to like to pass the buck. Which is one argument that seems true at times. They can be a bunch of bitchy, babies. Some of these guys called the union because the boss got on them for not doing their job. Even though I'm not totally against unions, I can see why some people are.
A union is just like a corporation..some are run well and some are not.
It is easy, I think, to argue for or against the bailouts. My initial reaction is not to do it..my second reaction is to let my elected officials take a crack at this..my third reaction is in response to the firestorm the bailouts cause..
Finally, after hearing and seeing as much as I can, I feel like no one knows what the bailouts will do in the short or long term. I'm sure one pundit will eventually be proven right, but with 1000's of pundits, I realize most take positions and make predictions based on their political stripe. Everyone has an agenda and some of the commentary is just off the charts..whether it be apologetic (too big to fail) or anti-Barack (he's a socialist) or anti-union (it's the workers fault).
The fact is..economists disagree,politicians disagree,people disagree. This happens a lot with any complex huge issue.
Like Mr.Stossel says though, the people will pull through, we always do. Collectively we voted for change, but I don't think we are really ready for big changes. We don't have the stomach for it..plus despite hard times, we still have it pretty good.
What I said in the election still holds, I voted for Barack because he would be the best one to start the conversation that might eventually lead to a change. It's gonna be years before anything big happens to our system. Too many people make too much money off it being the way it is to let it change without a fight. So far, I think its been a good start for Barack as far as getting folks involved with the process.
I don't agree with him on everything..not even close, but he has laid the frames out for debate on many key issues.
"A union is just like a corporation..some are run well and some are not."
I'd say more like a small bussiness, or franchise IMO. But I get what your saying.
"my second reaction is to let my elected officials take a crack at this."
Who Barack? You got to be kidding me...
"but I don't think we are really ready for big changes. We don't have the stomach for it..plus despite hard times, we still have it pretty good."
Acually I think we have been getting change in a negative way. Yea it's still pretty good for now, I think we are ready for change, or I'd called it restoring our country to what it should be. In someways I'd say it's worse. My grandparents had an 8th grade education worked blue collar jobs bought a house, & put me partly to private school before switching to public which I think is really not that great compared to private (at least in LA). One problem I think is inflation in itself. I don't see the need for it. I think money is something that can bind the hands for progress. Look at aids research.
Here's some reason why Ron Paul was not the Republican canidate IMO. He would have backup his his word & I think Republican's in Gov didn't like what he would do.
Ron Paul had a free pass to say whatever he wanted in the debates..I liked him for that..even though I didn't agree.
Barack Obama is not the only guy running the government so I don't think its all about him...but he won, so now he's the decider.
As for things getting worse, um yeah, money ain't what it used to be...but a lot of things are better too. So it isn't all bad. I wouldn't pin that on Republicans or Democrats..I would pin it on the purchasing based economic model.
Restoring our country to what it should be..thats kind of a loaded statement. What are we restoring the country to?
Ron Paul had a free pass to say whatever he wanted in the debates..I liked him for that..even though I didn't agree.
What's wrong with what he said?
Barack Obama is not the only guy running the government so I don't think its all about him...but he won, so now he's the decider.
Well yea, & the buck stops with him with a lot of decisions like it did with GWB.
As for things getting worse, um yeah, money ain't what it used to be...but a lot of things are better too. So it isn't all bad. I wouldn't pin that on Republicans or Democrats..I would pin it on the purchasing based economic model.
What economic model? Everything thing seems to be arbitrary decisions. If you mean a Mercantile type of model then I would highly agree. There's a reason for why money ain't what it use to be, like inflation, income taxes, our Govt. miss handling our money.
Restoring our country to what it should be..thats kind of a loaded statement. What are we restoring the country to
Well some things would be getting rid of inflation income tax, put mom back in the house to take care of the kids. Inflation is a big or main reason why we have two income families. Not needing a college degree to just get a job that someone can do without one. I don't agree with using a degree for weeding out people in some jobs. Doctors, Lyawers are some types of jobs I can see. But jobs like say desktop publishing, you can get on the job training for that. I do that at home just for fun. Just read the directions. Granted I have ten years experiance in printing, but to help me out mainly on touching up images. Not things like type setting. Plus you end up with this huge uneeded college bill.Also I think our moral values were better before. In the 80's you had this greed is good mentality that's I think we are a lot of the end result now. I'd say what we've said over the last few years is just the beginning.
John Stossel Is College Worth It? 20/20 ABC News
(Look at it from an objective viewpoint, not as a libertarian, Rep, Dem ect...)
Consumerism is the only thing that is really threatened here. And yes, that includes capitalism. It's time is running out. And no, that does not make me a socialist or a fascist. It is just an idea that has run its course.
Oatmeal: Well consumerism is the only thing at stake here. I don't know if it's really ran a course properly in the first place IMO.
Well I don't see how there could be any measure of a proper course. Ideas last for a while, and capitalism has had a good run, but I don't know many ideas that are infallible and permanent.
I just think we are at a turning point, a realignment. And I am not talking about Obama's policies. Seems to me this whole GM and Chrysler bankruptcy is pretty much about softening the blow. All this pure capitalism, natural law, libertarianism stuff does not really account for the poor very well. But the real change is something we cannot guess, and either way it is going to mean we have to think a lot harder about our quality of life and where we set our energies.
Problem is everyone screams change, but they want the other guy to change. Probably a little more humility when we all talk about what is going on would be in order. Capitalism has very real casualties that do not have a voice or visibility. It has been this way for years. I have no doubt whatsoever that we are headed right where we need to go, to a sobering time.
And BTW, inflation is all about credit and the supply and demand of capital and then the upward pressures on price that are driven by interest rates. It is not a bug on the wall - it IS CAPITALISM.
If you want to get rid of inflation, get rid of banking. Then look at what happens to your capitalist economy. Like I said, people want change, but they don't know how because we have really bought into this stuff for the last 70 years without much critical thought.
I can't see putting the blame on the government for many of the problems we have today..though it is a fine target. People have to take some responsibilty for buying into the economic system and the "dream."
That said, like Oat sez, the system (capitalism) is flawed.
College would be better if it was cheaper. Take that from somebody who's paying to go to college.
As I said before about Ron Paul..I like his stand on Iraq, but I'm not a fan of his economic policies.
I think you have to be real selective about what we restore from this countries past..there is a lot of ugliness there. Say what you will about "socialist" Europe, but those folks know how to live..now that we don't allow slavery here, we have to work a lot harder than most folks to make up for it.
I also think corporations have too much power..
Amen on the last two points.
And to everyone on this thread talking about overthrowing the system - you will be in turn labeled a fascist for imposing your ideas on people. The word does not mean much.
"College would be better if it was cheaper. Take that from somebody who's paying to go to college."
We're still paying off my wife's college tuition, among many of my friends who are getting ready to send their kids off to college. I did a year, but I think I might go back to study a trade if I do.
"libertarianism stuff does not really account for the poor very well."
I'll have to disagree with you there.
"And to everyone on this thread talking about overthrowing the system - you will be in turn labeled a fascist for imposing your ideas on people. The word does not mean much."
Funny you mention, I was starting to write a book, & my wife said the system I presented in the book was fascist/anarchy lol! I'd call it changing the system instead of overthrowing. Not unless your doing some kind of play on semantics here.
"I can't see putting the blame on the government for many of the problems we have today..though it is a fine target. People have to take some responsibilty for buying into the economic system and the "dream."
So when you see the government raising percentage on morgage rates, you don't see that as gov interferring helpng the problem. NAFTA wasn't a bad thing? Iraq, the drug war, Kantrina, & now bailouts for car companies to (name a few)? The govt. is an easy target because they made themselves. I agree people can be part of the blame, but seems like when people do their part the Government sometimes give the people the big middle fingure.
"Well I don't see how there could be any measure of a proper course. Ideas last for a while, and capitalism has had a good run, but I don't know many ideas that are infallible and permanent."
It's not all white now a days, I wouldn't play that card,
Well you all made some good points, but some of us will have to agree to disagree.
:)
"libertarianism stuff does not really account for the poor very well."
I'll have to disagree with you there.
You will have to explain that one to me. I just can't see it.
NAFTA wasn't a bad thing?
I though you believed in "free trade?" I don't actually know anything about Nafta, but what do you mean by these apparently rhettorical questions?
As for the government, it is by definition the representation of entrenched interests. But it is still just a reflection of a system, not some rogue element. I think that is what Cody is talking about, we are the problem because we let it get to this point. Obama, quite contrary to a lot of his rhettoric, is still working under a lot of assumptions that I question - but he is off to a good start for at least changing approaches.
I'll be the first to say that things have been problematic ever since we started setling down and building fences.
I not prepared to think that any "system" that is for organizing more than a couple hundred people will work..
Is the current system totally at the mercy of capital..yes. Do I trust a system run completely by the capital holders (where there is a government or not)..nope.
The best we can do is participate and hold folks (and governments) accountable where possible.
Oatmeal: I believe in a free market here in America. Free Trade? Well that's another issue all together. NAFTA was responsible for putting a lot of people out of work here & Mexico.Libertarianism, believes in a free market where everyone's equal, & has a chance. It accounts for the poor also to give help where needed through some type of charity. Though private or state &\or local givernment. What I mean by these rhettorical questions, is that so far our Government, those in DC who decide for us. Have made very poor choices in the past that have had a negative effect on this country. It was a resonse to CodyB's comment for using the Govt for a scapegoat, or to put the blame on.
Here some INFO sir:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_(Economics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA
CodyB: We have a Corperate/Social/Welfare system that exist now. It's not true Capitalism. We have a system that's out of control, & ran by few people. You put in socialism, &/or communisn, who do you think will run the show?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Ron Paul on Free Trade - Lou Dobbs/CNN
Except you can't have "true capitalism"..that is just for textbooks.
You act like "the system" has changed, but it has always been this way. I really think we want similar things. I believe in democracy, so I think by fixing the government so that it works for the people instead of for corporations we'll be in better shape. You believe (not trying to put words in your mouth) in libertarianism and capitalism and that the government is the problem so you want to shrink it. I get that.
The thing is, since its democracy, we end up with something in the middle..which we both kind of dislike. I agree there is too much power in the hands of too few, but I don't think that means we have to reduce the size of goverment. I believe we have to take the government back from the oligarchy.
I'm not a fan of all the tenets of socialism, or communism, or capitalism, or libertarianism..I am a fan of democracy, of charity, and of people. It would be great if we could tear down some of the borders and fences. About 15000 years ago when folks started drawing lines and putting up fences our problems began.
CodyB: We're accually a Republic :
Look under the United States heading.
Republic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
Democracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMOCRACY
Point being..
Ok, get your point..I'm for a more democratic republic. One in which we do a better job of creating an informed electorate. After spending a semester with Plato, I'm less of a fan.
Less of a fan of Plato?
"Except you can't have "true capitalism"..that is just for textbooks."
Seems to be the case so far,but it's something I think we should strive for.
"I really think we want similar things."
I think your right about that, we just can't agree on the means to the end lol!
;)
yeah, Plato and a lot of classic philosophers didn't like music very much, and that makes me skeptical.
Hey..great post and thread. I appreciate all the time you put into it.
"yeah, Plato and a lot of classic philosophers didn't like music very much, and that makes me skeptical."
Why was that?
"Hey..great post and thread. I appreciate all the time you put into it."
That's for your input bud, appreciate it.
They felt it was governed by too much emotion..not enough reason.
That's for the explanation.
:)