This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Zero Hedge Is Calling The Elections...
...for China.
»
- 8075 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Contact Information:
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Suggested Reading:
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure. Here's our Cookie Policy.
China and New Jersey are equally likely to have honest elections. Too bad, NJ is a beautiful state (at least the portion without many people).
Also, they're both run by authoritarian statist dinosaurs.
not anymore...i hope
I call Corpus Christi over Corzine Aquino by a hair breadth or breath or whatever.... just get it over with. They are all the same. Promises, promises...
Health care will not pass.
Stimulus 2 is guaranteed.
Invest accordingly.
Agree with you totally.
Hmmm. I don't agree fully. Health care won't pass, for sure. But stimulus II? The elections strengthen hand of republicans and will weaken resolve of blue dog dems. i thin these results reduce likelihood of stimulus II
Since all the candidates were open borders globalists
I agree. China.
If NJ goes red, that should be enough to hold up health care from passing this year (as many elected officials will have to re-assess how the public is hating on them right now). If we can hold up health care until next year, the fact that it's an election year should bury any chances it has. THAT is why Obama is in such a rush.
Obama's health care is finally toast. The more we see of Obama (gee, ya think MSM will accurately report his lefty arrogant pie-in-the-sky high tax agenda?) the less popular he'll become, even though it'll never be politically correct to oppose the first black president........oh, sorry, I mean the second black president--Clinton was the first.
I love it when you all refer Obama as a "lefty".
Hilarious. Since when is fascism left of center?
Since when is fascism left of center?
Since about forever, actually.
Pretty sure its right of center.
Since when does whoring yourself out to corporations make one left of center?
FDR was LEFT OF CENTER.
It's still gubmint control over every aspect of society, only the fascists let the "private" sector (party loyalists, actually) do their bidding instead of doing the dirty work themselves.
Left of center. Squarely.
Then you'd consider Anarcism right of center?
I don't think you understand politics correctly.
In fact, you're an idiot.
And Obama is no nationalist. Certainly not a "radical nationalist" by any stretch of the imagination.
Fascism is the far left. It isn't debatable.
Hitler was a socialist. He went to the most liberal schools at his time. He nationalized industries. His book written in jail promoted socialism.
The core difference between the left and right is property rights. You can’t be right if you advocate in taking private property. You can’t be a two bit dictator if you have no control over the media or industries. Corporations are the natural enemy of fascism.
"Corporations are the natural enemy of fascism."
If that isn't the dumbest thing I've ever read on this site, it's definitely in the top 3.
And FDR was part of the aristocracy who "turned" on his own class all the while he was educated in rich boy schools.
Your argument is riduculous.
Obama is a terrible fucking president. No question.
However, claiming he is a lefty is bullshit.
Right of center ideas led to this fiscal disaster that we currently find ourselves in. Period.
You want more of this "lefty" (in quotes because its actually well right of center) governing or true free market policies? You'll have Goldman Sachs logo tatooed on your ass.
FDR's leftist policies saved your precious little economy. Without him, (Or if a Obama type were President at the time) you would have been looking at a revolution where I can guarantee you we would have had a true lefty politcal system.
"FDR's leftist policies saved your precious little economy."
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/gdcswqzdcd--You-Went-Full-Retard-Man-...
The entire left-right paradigm is fascist. That's the secret. It's designed to make you choose between fascism and fascism but think you have a choice in the matter. That should be completely obvious in today's political environment. Don't listen to the left-wing pundits or the talk show hosts. They're all fascists too.
Law of Power Number 31:
"Control the Options: Get Others to Play with the Cards you Deal
The best deceptions are the ones that seem to give the other person a choice: Your victims feel they are in control, but are actually your puppets. Give people options that come out in your favor whichever one they choose. Force them to make choices between the lesser of two evils, both of which serve your purpose. Put them on the horns of a dilemma: They are gored wherever they turn."
Politics is not a spectrum. It's a circle. Left and right are the same. They entertain us. We feed them.
+1 ... or a triangle.
Anyways, Obama is a "mixed-economy fascio-socialist." He nationalizes some industries but attempts to tell them ALL what to do.
+1 - I was looking to see if somone gets it here. It is not linear, it is in fact as you note above a circle and perhaps even a cycle. Westerners are not going to get it and continue stuck in their single dimension thinking (left wing, right wing and on and on). Easterners are far better at understanding the cyclical nature of things and will understand how a "right wing" regime can simultaneously be "left wing". But let the arguments continue!
FDR's policies (high taxes, protectionism, government spending crowding out private investment, deflationary monetary policy) prolonged and deepened the Great Depression.
Obama is a socialist. Look back at his radio interview from 2001. Only socialists think about redistributing wealth in the terms he described.
Socialism and fascism are pretty much the same thing. Read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. That's as good an analysis as there is on the topic.
You need to put the cool-aid down if you think it was "right of center" ideas that got us into this fiscal disaster. There's a lot of blame to go around, it wasn't just the right "rolling the dice".
Corporations are the natural enemies of individuals. German Corporations did such a wonderful job of stopping fascism.
Which part of nationalization did you not understand?
Some of you people are fucked in the head.
Some of you have money smarts, but education left you behind in the fifth grade.
Think of political affiliation as a circle, with the far left and right merging at the extremes.
The right wing went so far to the right of center over the last 20 years or so, that people that are slightly to the right are considered "looney leftist liberals." (A brilliant piece of alliteration I took from Rush Limbaugh.)
Whoring not really right or left anymore in America...its the only thing both parties have that resembles a shared principle.
Progressive type governments (republicans only do this slower) lead to central government control of most if not all important industries (facism and totalitarianism) as we little people aren't smart enough to be allowed all that freedom and other nonsense.
Look around: GM, Chrysler, Citibank, TARP, Friends of angelo, govt control of student loans and next up Health Care, Energy (cap and tax) the Web (Net nuetrality)
If people don't wake up who knows if there's going to be anything left.
+1. Fascism is right of center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism), as opposed to wrong or left of center.
Heh - even lefty Wikipedia calls this claim "dubious" in the defining sentence.
What I find amazing is how stupid Americans are. They can’t tell the difference between right and left.
If you believe in the ownership of private properties then you’re from the right. If you believe in less ownership and more collective, then you’re from the left. It’s that simple.
Fascism is in the left for one simple fact it nationalize industries.
And one more thing libertarian is not leftist. They are the far right as you can go. Anarchism is the opposite of libertarian. They are far left as you can go. They do not believe in any private ownership.
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the
merger of corporate and government power" - Benito Mussolini
Whether you can wrap your head around this or not, the Ron Paul (however honorable a man he is as he at least legislates on his principles) school of economics is a corporate owned government.Its inevitable.
And how the hell do both merge? It’s called nationalization of industries. It’s called forcibly taking away private property by the government. The government then place party members to run it.
Benito Mussolini was a socialist.
OK, then what would you call it if a corporation or a group of them took control of the government?
What you are refering to is communism, not fascism.
When a corporation comes into the government, does what it wants, THAT IS NOT A NATIONALIZATION OF INDUSTRY. Its the opposite.
Give me an example where corporations took control of the government. Bribery and corruption isn’t it.
If bribery and corruption isn't it then maybe thats the step right before they wrestle away control for good.
And I'm pretty sure lobbyists writing legisaltion on behalf of companies is riding the border of a corporate takeover pretty hard, let alone the recent bailouts.
I'm pretty sure GE backing Obama thorugh its media arm is pretty close to something as well.Especially as it came out in the last week or two that Obama is shelving the tax reform that wouldve cost GE several Bil a year, not to mention thier bailout.
The press was supposed to be the fourth branch, right?
Or in our current case, a branch that puts a black guy into power because maybe just maybe, the stupid American people would not put up with the same old shit they get from a white guy that they have gotten for the past 30 years, and that this time the good ole powers that be thought they might have to toss us a good looking, black, "change" candidate. Even if, this is just the same old shit as before, but maybe it bought WALL ST a few more years.
You can’t name one that corporation took complete control of the government can you? Corruption and bribery happen since the invent of government. It is not limited to corporations. You’re gasping for straws.
United Fruit Company.
United Fruit Company
I’m going to called it a night. It is a childish fantasy to believe that corporations have the wild idea that it is good for them to take control of government.
For profit corporations do one thing, make money. They are not in the business of handing out welfare checks. Governments do a bad job of making money.
The NAZI were fascist right? Hitler was a fascist right? Then why did Hitler name his party “National Socialist German Workers' Party”. Do you think if Hitler was far right would have worlds like “Socialist” and “Worker” for his party name? If Hitler was far right he will name his party “How To Get Rich Fast”. Hitler was a socialist. Go read his book.
It is this easy. If I am rich I can control corporations and profit from them with no liability for what I do. If a foreign company or government restricts my business, it is in my best interest to try to bring the military of the country I live in and the intelligence service to do my bidding.
There are many, many examples of this, and if you don't see it then you are a complete moron. (Just look at the history of Dole) This is government working on behalf of the wealthy serve their 'freedom to make money.'
What is the golden rule: He who makes the gold makes the rules.
The left has always ostensibly been for the worker.
To answer your stupid question about Hitler and what he named his party -- if I call Rush Limbaugh a liberal, does it make it so?
If Americans are stupid, then the remaining population of planet earth possesses the intelligence of retarded pond scum (how smart were the Germans, the Russians, the inbred Brits -- so stupid they still support German monarchs and allow Muslims to establish separate governments). Americans may be naieve and thereby deceived by the rapacious globalists but stupid they are not!
I think one of the main reasons that Fascism is thought to be right of center is because in the 20's and 30's its primary opponent was the socialists and communists in Europe. That being said the primary policies of Nazism and other Fascist nations were much closer to the modern socialist/liberal policies including socialized medicine, environmentalism, and nationalization of "important" industries.
Here how politics works in real life. The vast majority of fighting is within its own ideology.
Hitler fought Stalin for control of the left. Just like Obama fought Hillary for control of the left. Happen everyday.
Here spend ten minutes of your life doing something productive...
The American Form of Government in 10 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE
well.. Hitler's party was the National Socialist Party...
Hitler's Nazism was Rightist, Stalin's Communism was Leftist. Hannah Arendt called them both "totalitarian," which takes care of the fine distinctions. A totalitarian government rules by using a state security apparatus that enforces a dictator's policies through violence, the threat of violence and political imprisonment. Under those conditions, it doesn't really matter whether I.G. Farben is or is not an "independent" corporation, or whether the Communists own the factories. Both governments run everything.
Exactly
http://facweb.northseattle.edu/erolguin/amgov/flash/libcon.html
I'm suprised so many zerohedge readers don't know where the two lie on the political spectrum.
Germany's National Socialist Party-the Nazi Party was clearly of the left. It was socialist. The difference between communism and fascism is fascists exert government control over private corporations while commies straight up take over the means of production. Socialism is more of a scheme of massive redistribution of wealth. At least that's how I think of it.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying anybody elected to any office in the US is a Nazi.
Spin it however you like. You Austrian school econs are fucking nuts.
The inevitable end to your ideas is fascism.
If you give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna want a glass a milk.
If you give Americans the ability to do whatever the fuck they want, they will. And eventually, someone or something will gain enough power to take control of government.
It might start with employing a lobbyist is Washington, then an entire division of lobbyists, then you might try to start righting legislation in Congress, then you might begin paying politicians to deregulate your industry, and before you know it, the prophecy (as it is self-fulfilling) is fulfilled.
Goldman Sachs.
You want even less government intervention? Hilarious.
How the fuck can you spin it? Germany's National Socialist Party, Hitler party was socialists. Do you think a person from the right will name his party “Socialist Party”? Come on.
Austrian school promotes decentralization. How can you become a two bit dictator if you can’t control a damn thing?
Because presumably your corporation or entity will eventually gain enough influence in its constant thirst for growth to go further and further until its owns and controls absolutely everything.
What do you think Goldman would do if there were ZERO restrictions placed on it? I mean honestly, and they have to continue to increase their EPS on a quarterly basis. I mean there is only so many legitmate ways for an entity to gain wealth legitmately. And investors just won't tolerate slow growth or no growth (cough, cough)
Fascism does not work, communism does not work, socialism does not work.Unfettered capitalism does not work.
You just need to keep the beast in its cage and sufficiently regulate capitalism
Let’s take the example of GS and other big corporations. They should all be dead right now. The only reason they are still alive is government help and nationalization. If the government didn’t help out most will be gone. Period.
Corporations doesn’t last long. The bigger they are they higher chance of failure.
I think you are close to the overall point here.
If you give these corporations too much power they will be able to get what they want from government.
The idea that these bailouts would not have happened under a libertarian government is insane.
The corporations would have even more power to get what they want, and we know what they want...the rest of our money.
In a libertarian world the government is so small that they will not have the funds to bailout out corporations even if they wanted to.
A libertarian will let them die. They do not believe in government interference. It’s everybody for him/herself. No help.
Corporations (for profits) are there for one thing make money. They are not in the business of giving money away on social programs. That’s the government job.
Or until one day, all the fucking banks decide to get together off the coast of Georgia and create the FED from our (in terms of private sector bailouts) libertarian roots.
A corporation is like a beast, its always gonna want more, and unless something stops it, it will always get more.
These Ron Paul types sit around and say, "FDR's new deal failed. If only we let the economy heal on its own we'd a been fine in 18-24 months; FDR extended the depression" And I counter with, you had 5 million youngsters out there with not only no job, BUT THEY COULDNT GET FOOD. Had it not been for the WPA and CCC, we very well could have had a revolution. What econ graph factors that in in the Chicago School or the Austrian School?
Shit's a little more complicated in real life because in reality, FDR SAVED capitalism.
Had Hoover gotten relected, we very well could have had a revolution and been living in quite the socialist country.
Although, I guess FDR only saved capitalism long enough for everyone to forget the past and think their charts and graphs were more accuate then the actual world that takes place in 3-D and not on a piece of paper.
you're a hoot, that's what you are.
Well, he may have "saved Capitalism" but at what cost? A more over-bearing central government that has been a pest ever since. The nanny state was born with FDR and we've been worse off since.
So, consider the costs before you offer such praise (undeserved in my opinion).
I am Chumbawamba.
In my opinion, and I obviously can't prove any of this.
We would be lvivng in socialist like state had FDR not been President in the 30's. Because a nation of totally screwed over people arent gonna wait around for the economy to fix itself when they can't get food.
I saw a sat the other day, 1 out 2 kids in this country (USA) will be on food stamps for at least part of their lives before the age of 20. 1 out 2. That's today.
I'm talking in the 30's when pissed off guys couldn't get food at all, let alone food stamps.
Do you know what food stamps enable us to do? They enable you and I to keep living our lives carefree of half of America without them ever getting pissed off enough to do something about it. The minute they do, we can kiss goodbye to any benefits of a "free" economic society because we'll be living in a socialst one.
I know I don't want millions of screwed over guys with guns and nothing to lose dropping by my house, do you?
Now, you can say my "populism" is selfish in the sense that I'm happy with my personal life and I see a lot of FDR's policies as insurance to keep our overall system afloat, and you'd be right. But I also consider it a win-win for many.
But I also see the world in real terms and through others not based on what appears to be "sound" econmomic theory because the latter is hard to figure guys with guns into.
Lincoln saved the Union.
How can you become a two bit dictator if you can’t control a damn thing?
That says it all. Silver Bullet has not explained how one corporation is going to take over everything. You just assume this will happen and then base your argument from there. Sorry, I don't accept your assertion.
The other good point that was made that was effectively ignored is that these mega-corporations we have today wouldn't have been around if it weren't for government assistance or capital (taxes) to get them started, and a government granted monopoly to let them get huge.
I am Chumbawamba.
Obviously, a corporation has never taken over the US completely, but I think we are pretty close, and I'd rather not get much closer to that.
You can refuse to accept my theory, I don't its based on anything too outrageous, but I could be wrong. Who knows, maybe house prices will never decline across the country either. I just think that its inevitable, just a theory I'm tossing out there, you are free to counter it.
I somewhat agree with your last point, but I think I mentioned the terms that existed when the FED was created and the fact of the matter now is we don't have a libertarian govt, but our corps our still huge. So, even if we somehow managed to get back to a libertarian govt, the corps would still be huge and would run right over us.
No, if we managed to get back to a libertarian government, most of the corporations would exist. They would be bankrupt. These corporations are huge and continue to exist thanks to the government's help.
Praise The Lord.
Barclays Chief Executive Banksta John Varley says he does not worship the devil; he echos Goldman Sachs Brian Griffiths who says Jesus endorses selfishness.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aySZ9TS.aODA&pos=11
I pray for a raise every day...And one of Robo's girls...and some unsuspecting bag-holder that will pay a premium for my shit...morally bankrupt...YES
Well, now that you mention grwoth as propelling both of these "isms" you gotten in touch with a physical limit to grwoth: energy. We appear to be at peak oil with no scalable alternatives now in place. Further, we've got a host of other ecological dilemmas to face even if peak oil were not upon us.
Both of these "isms" are passe.
Well, now that you mention grwoth as propelling both of these "isms" you gotten in touch with a physical limit to grwoth: energy. We appear to be at peak oil with no scalable alternatives now in place. Further, we've got a host of other ecological dilemmas to face even if peak oil were not upon us.
Both of these "isms" are passe.
I never would have expected a bill weakening the Clean Air Act to be called the "Clear Skies" initiative, but that's my naive side showing through.
Seriously. You can call a party whatever the fuck you want. In Europe, where social responsibility carries (somewhat) more weight than here in the USA, calling something socialist doesn't necessarily make it so, it just means you want to use a popular label for your organization.
A book by Jonah Goldberg entitled "Liberal Fascism" traces the roots of the liberal movement abroad and domestically. It is clear.
Well, if Jonah Goldberg wrote it, it must be true.
the central tenet of fascism is socialism. socialists are "left" in our system, ergo so are fascists. Fascists as "right wingers" is a fabrication of the MSM, democraps and progressives.
you need to read "liberal fascism" by Goldberg
Stalin over Trotsky by acclamation.
Former GS-ass Corzine got the axe. Good Riddance.
not so fast - Corzine was a consideration for Timmay's job - he'll reappear stronger and more powerful somewhere in the administration
Damnit! This is like a horror movie -- these motherfuckers keep springing back to life.
the electorate loses.
Christie wins NJ, only one way to celebrate...
LET'S... AUCTION OFF SOME MORE TREASURIES!
I wrote in walstreetpro2!
Old Vietnamese proverb about politics: "Dung heap same, only flies change."
so politicians are clean burning?
Damn! I voted for the shit sandwich!
Speaking of the MSM, they'll start to turn on Obama when they finally realize that Fox is eating their breakfast, lunch, and dinner. $$$ over politics.
Corzine will end up as one of the chief mafia dons within the Washington/Wall Street/Goldman Sachs Matrix.
Now that he's a "free agent", he will be able to earn billions, instead of earning a paltry govenor's salary with his investments in a blind trust.
His account can now be directly hardwired into the circuit cable leading to Goldman's Prop Desk.
But will he remember to wear his seatbelt? He was so close to that Darwin award .....
whats with all the regressive day traders. they are all the same party. and what by the way is wrong with real care for all - you know single payer. just leave it to a day trader and if they have to pay an extra dime in taxes they join the tea party coalition.
gs corzine losing is a good thing but there is no silver lining in a republican take over.
kudos to silver bullet who nailed it
A Rep. wins NJ?!? A cold wind bloweth...
Chalk it up to a voter backlash against the vampire squid
I call for the Democrats and Republicans, as organizations, to commit seppuku, and peaceably let the two party system bleed into something more... representative and far less corrupt.
If they fail to heed this call to action, these two corrupt faces of the same coin of bankster exchange, then they may very well end up being sacrificed to populist deities on the top of pyramids, bleeding hearts asunder to pay the wage of a society broken by malfeasance.
A pox on the two party system, and Republicans, and Democrats. I'm not naive enough to believe in a system of rule without corruption, but I'm not fool enough to believe that there isn't something much better than the shit pile of an excuse for honest representation that we have now either.
Check to Crab Cake.
I got the tip for drinks and dinner on that one!
Agreed; China. Buffet voted before the polls for coal shipments destined there. No return traffic going eastbound though.
The vox populi hath spoken and spoken they have. Although I have no faith in the newcomers either !!!
I agree with those who say this wounds health care in its present form. If this was a campaign, Obama would "pivot." Maybe we will now see a new coalition form; one that moves away from the extremes. We may also see movement on financial services reform and cap and trade.
Here is a graphic of the political continuum.
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/05/update-on-political-con...
Right and left are on a continuum and meet at the extremes in their attitudes towards the individual and the rule of law.
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/05/update-on-political-continuum-obama.html
Great chart to bring up. Obama is clearly moving toward centralizing power-- moving towards our country towards the left on social issues and individual rights, as the heathcare debate would demonstrate.
Interstingly enough, Obama inherited a political structure that was bordering on corporatism in regards to economic freedoms-- and instead of rejecting it, he's embracing it.
A cynical view of this, it seems, is that the primary push of Obama is to consolidate as much collective power as he can. Consolidating power on social issues is a longer road, but he has plently of friends in Congress pushing him in that direction.
On the economic issues, the easiest way (right now) to consolidate power is to ally with the finanical elites -- baecuse the path is already well worn. These are probably "friends of concevience" for Obama because they meet a need.
At some point, one would think that interests between economic and social would clash. That's probably on reason why the masses are not vocal, but there certainly a lack of trust in our leaders. We could be headed or something quite unstable over the next few years.
Strange how many people don't get fundamental basic politics
totalitarianism is found at the extremes of both left and right
fascism is right wing totalitarianism
communism (stalinist version) is left wing totalitarianism
anyone who thinks fascism is far left is mistaking totalitarianism for fascism
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!
The widespread misunderstanding this basic distinction is one of the most fundamental shortcomings of the US education system.
The distinction between left and right is simply the degree to which individual rights are upheld.
In other words, anarchy is the extreme right, and any system where there are no individual rights (complete state control) would be on the left.
Don't confuse this with economics, and don't confuse this with the present US system.
Economic systems that would need supporting political systems that are leftist would be communism, socialism, fascism, corporatism, nazi-ism, mercantilism, globalism and the present US government system, which has elements of all of these. Ecomomic systems that would require right extremes would be something like the Austrian School.
The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is the desired degree of economic integration with an already well left of center political system. The Dems want to fully integrate it, the Reps want less integration. But they both want to take all your individual rights away, in any case (Ron Paul excluded, of course).
It is sad just how much Americans have been indoctrinated against Anarchism. This is actually the founding basis of our country (complete protection of individual rights), but the lefties have put such a bad spin on it that it is immediately dismissed as a place we never want to go.
The US system moved left of center since the Civil War, and has only moved further left since then.
Thinking Americans should forget economics, and concentrate on electing those persons who will strengthen their individual rights. The economic side will then take care of itself.
You do understand that the main tenant of Anarchism is that the individual owns no property - right? You simply cannot separate politics from economics; they are two sides of the same coin. Anarchy doesn't work with property ownership; that is why it is considered leftist. This is also why it is very different than libertarianism which is what you seem to be proposing, which is on the right. By the way, just as Anarchism would lead to gangs getting together and taking the shit you need to survive, libertarianism would do the same thing. That is why a government with police is necessary. The gang will always have more guns and desperate people than you will.
Of course you can separate politics from economics. They may or may not be mutually exclusive depending upon circumstances, but the two should not be confused. Politics first, economics second.
When choosing to place your vote, the most important thing to consider is the candidate's stance on individual rights, not their economic position. The two are simply not the same.
The history of the US is a study in the continual erosion of individual liberties. Everything else stems from that.
If you want to reverse the economic destruction of the country, then elect a candidate who puts individual rights above all else, and is prepared to concentrate on that objected above all else. Sadly, no one ever considers this issue, and it is never a consideration in the elections.
I am not suggesting that Anarchy is the best solution, only that it is at the extreme right end of the scale, and that elements of it clearly form a part of the foundation of the US.
There are contradictory definitions of Anarchy. The one that I use in a political sense is, and I quote, 'where each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)'.
That is to the extreme right.
Murray Rothbard has been described as an 'Anarcho-Capitalist', or the combination of extreme right individualist politics and a capitalist economic system. But the two are not the same. Capitalism can also develop into corporatism and fascism, which is what we have in the US today. But this is a leftist capitalism.
Go for political candidates who are right wing, supporters of individual rights above all else. Keep the politicians in politics, not in economics. Let the private sector handle the economics.
Capitalism is the "free exchange between individuals. Anarchy is the "lack of systematic coercive force" (from the Greek a- "lack of", anarchy "the state"). In order to have truly free exchange, you must have a lack of coercion between the two individuals. Anarcho-capitalism is a redundant term. All capitalism is necessarily anachronistic. Ipso facto logic is difficult to argue against.
And the original term for "economics" was "political economy" and it seems to me too important of a discipline to be left to either politicians or economists.
The government is that gang of theives.
If the left-right scale is a measure of "collectivism", then fascism and communism fall almost next to each other. Social democracy, christian democracy, and socialism don't fall too far from those trees either.
If the other axis is "authoritarianism", you can have a highly collectivist society without it being authoritarian. At that extreme is anarcho-syndicalism.
friggin americunts make my head hurt
just because they told you nazism = fascism in school does not make it true.
nazism = right wing, fascism = government taken over by corporations, any wing
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything."
Joseph Stalin
damn computers
Let me read into what you're saying Marla.
Are you saying that the Chinese are suddenly outsourcing?
If not, then why can't China make the call?
The only capacity in which NAZI's were 'national socialist' was in its formation, to gain popular (i.e. lower and middle class) approval, but it very swiftly swung to the hard right once in power
if it was socialist, it wouldn't have tolerated partnerships with large corporations.
Like the corporation that built the majority of germany's world war II tanks, of which Prescott Bush was a director
were the NAZI party socialist/left wing, it would have had purely state run tank factories
A democracy can only exist until voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. After that, democracies always collapse due to loose fiscal policy.
A democracy can only exist until voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. After that, democracies always collapse due to loose fiscal policy.
OK, ENOUGH! I am so sick of hearing this BS quote everywhere. I don't know where it came from, and none of the founding fathers ever said it. Just PLEASE stop quoting it as if it explains today's problems, when we are actually experiencing the opposite problem.
It is not the VOTERS who are voting themselves "largesse from the public treasury." It is the POLITICIANS! And they are doing this despite the fact that the VOTERS are doing every damn thing within their power to make it stop. Stop blaming the voters!
Ok, I feel better now.
How much does it really matter anymore who gets "(s)elected"...they will play, or die in a freak plane crash eventually, or have a kodak moment with a bullet (or 3).
fvck you, Silver Bullet.
this isn't left - right or republican - democrat. its the elites and the serfs, and the people in power always break their own rules. after all ,they make the rules for us not them. there is no level they won't stoop to , to self serve, to perpetuate and expand their power. what else is there for them.
Vote with guns.
Cast your bullet.
I am Chumbawamba.
Easy there, ok?
What do you think the odds that Corzine becomes the Obama administrations favorite choice to run Bank of America?
Who knows?
Maybe not so far fetched at all....
The old GS affiliation surely did not help Mr. Corzine here in NJ.
Only thing that matter is price of gold goes to $1200 by end of this year.
bullshit, semantics, and words in generalneed to roll over and die. What we call it is not important; I for one would like to classify this as a "cake" kind of government. But I don't like cake, so let's vote the cake crooks out of office, OK?... Ok.
You like Cookies?
Hayek's 'Road To Serfdom' small extract showing why Fascism and Communism are two sides of the same coin.BOTH OF THE LEFT.
http://jim.com/hayek.htm
It's a circle wherein as you draw it, both ends eventually meet.
Exactly. It's consolidating power for the state, by the state and of the state.
Sort of like what our own Constitution says... well, except for the "state" part.
What I find interesting is that BOTH political parties have been moving toward the pinnacle of collective control... but from totally different directions.
Makes you wonder whether there are any real Libertarians left.
" Laugh about it, shout about it, whem you have to choose"
Anyway you look at it you lose"...And here's to you Mrs. Robinson...
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
I get on my knees and pray, "We don't get fooled again"
Forget left, right, fascist, socialist, FDR. The electorate is struggling to find some candidate who is honest and forthright. This has been going on with a vengeance since the Kennedy assassination. That's the reason "change" is embraced. However, almost every new leader gives us the same old garbage. Changeobama is now exposed as a lie. Oh well, at least we got this episode over with early.
Hey Chignos, I'm with you.
If Left, Center, and Right were the normal, the new normal is the crazy 4th dimension in which we find ourselves.
Government and corporate malfeasance has become so obsurd, blatant, and obvious, that even the dumb-masses can see it.
But the enemy has always been with us, for the enemy is ourselves. If you're really pissed off, look in the mirror, and change yourself first. Then go out and do the right thing. Boycott sour politicos and companies. Vote with your dollars!
Let's clean the place up.
Dear Mr. President,
What part of the word CHANGE did you not understand?
He is changing everything into HOPEless.