This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
F.A. Hayek On "The Great Utopia"
While it is hardly necessary to provide commentary to one of F.A. Hayek's timeless observations from his book, The Road To Serfdom, rereading the chapter titled The Great Utopia, in this year of what could possibly be the most important election in the history of the United States, in which the US public will be promised nothing short of utopia by virtually every candidate except the one who really knows that fixing America would require pain and sacrifice, is everyone's duty. Courtesy of the Center for Economic Liberty we recreate it below in its entirety, and urge all readers, regardless of political persuasion of economic beliefs to consider what F.A.Hayek was saying some 70 years earlier, and how very applicable it is to our current situation.
The Great Utopia
There can be no doubt that most of those in the democracies who demand a central direction of all economic activity still believe that socialism and individual freedom can be combined. Yet socialism was early recognized by many thinkers as the gravest threat to freedom.
It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarian. It began quite openly as a reaction against the liberalism of the French Revolution. The French writers who laid its foundation had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong dictatorial government. The first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle."
Nobody saw more clearly than the great political thinker de Tocqueville that democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom," he said. "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man," he said in 1848, "while socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
To allay these suspicions and to harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives—the craving for freedom — socialists began increasingly to make use of the promise of a "new freedom." Socialism was to bring "economic freedom," without which political freedom was "not worth having."
To make this argument sound plausible, the word "freedom" was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us. Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.
The claim that a planned economy would produce a substantially larger output than the competitive system is being progressively abandoned by most students of the problem. Yet it is this false hope as much as anything which drives us along the road to planning.
Although our modern socialists' promise of greater freedom is genuine and sincere, in recent years observer after observer has been impressed by the unforeseen consequences of socialism, the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under "communism" and "fascism." As the writer Peter Drucker expressed it in 1939, "the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."
No less significant is the intellectual outlook of the rank and file in the communist and fascist movements in Germany before 1933. The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was well known, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. The communists and Nazis clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties simply because they competed for the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common, was the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits made of the right timber, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.
What is promised to us as the Road to Freedom is in fact the Highroad to Servitude. For it is not difficult to see what must be the consequences when democracy embarks upon a course of planning. The goal of the planning will be described by some such vague term as "the general welfare." There will be no real agreement as to the ends to be attained, and the effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all.
Democratic assemblies cannot function as planning agencies. They cannot produce agreement on everything — the whole direction of the resources of the nation-for the number of possible courses of action will be legion. Even if a congress could, by proceeding step by step and compromising at each point, agree on some scheme, it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody.
To draw up an economic plan in this fashion is even less possible than, for instance, successfully to plan a military campaign by democratic procedure. As in strategy it would become inevitable to delegate the task to experts. And even if, by this expedient, a democracy should succeed in planning every sector of economic activity, it would still have to face the problem of integrating these separate plans into a unitary whole. There will be a stronger and stronger demand that some board or some single individual should be given power to act on their own responsibility. The cry for an economic dictator is a characteristic stage in the movement toward planning. Thus the legislative body will be reduced to choosing the persons who are to have practically absolute power. The whole system will tend toward that kind of dictatorship in which the head of the government is position by popular vote, but where he has all the powers at his command to make certain that the vote will go in the direction he desires.
Planning leads to dictatorship because dictatorship is the most effective instrument of coercion and, as such, essential if central planning on a large scale is to be possible. There is no justification for the widespread belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary; it is not the source of power which prevents it from being arbitrary; to be free from dictatorial qualities, the power must also be limited. A true "dictatorship of the proletariat," even if democratic in form, if it undertook centrally to direct the economic system, would probably destroy personal freedom as completely as any autocracy has ever done.
Individual freedom cannot be reconciled with the supremacy of one single purpose to which the whole of society is permanently subordinated. To a limited extent we ourselves experience this fact in wartime, when subordination of almost everything to the immediate and pressing need is the price at which we preserve our freedom in the long run. The fashionable phrases about doing for the purposes of peace what we have learned.to do for the purposes of war are completely misleading, for it is sensible temporarily to sacrifice freedom in order to make it more secure in the future, but it is quite a different thing to sacrifice liberty permanently in the interests of a planned economy.
To those who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters, the connection between the two systems is obvious. The realization of the socialist program means the destruction of freedom. Democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is simply not achievable.
»
- 43005 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
What, universities have to be public? All there funds come from government? Did they get rid of tuition?
Roads originally were all private. When developer creates roads at his expense, he then turns them over to government, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Atomic energy- because that is the only kind that exists? No oil. gas, coal, electricity, etc. Even Atomic could be private- isn't GE and Westinghouse private corporations? They couldn't have hired EInstein and all the rest?
I'm not a Rander, but you seem attached to labels without the knowledge of whether they fit or not. The fruits of labor are wages. The only way to take these is through exchange (voluntary) or taxes (government seizure/theft).
Mass produced electricity, lightbulbs, radio, records, phonographs, cars, airplanes, dynamite, all government projects you fool, ohhh, wait a second.. I'll get back to you on this..
Well .gov did do Tang and mass murder over and over and over..
The internet started as a research project however it did exactly jack shit for roughly 30 years...until it was unleashed in the private marketplace.
Atomic energy? Really?
A) You presume that in all these instances, the way we currently do things is the only way, and the best way. That private individuals acting in their own self interests would not have found a better way.
B) Even when there is a better way, the government finds a way to fuck it up. Take nuclear energy for instance. Why was it ever determined that heavy water was the best type of reactor to use? HINT: weapons grade byproducts. Yeah...that's right, Statist...better fucking killing machines.
Just to be clear, you did just suggest that the Internet wouldn't exist if the government hadn't created it? So, nobody would have thought of improving information transfer without the benevolence of public funding? Which governmental agency was it that funded A.G. Bell?
As for the second part, you really did stumble on to something. The government project to build a better means of killing humans also created the technology that brought us Fukushima.
So childish.
I fear for my kids when it is remotely possible that a nut like you, who thinks all governments exist for the sole purpose of killing people more efficiently, would ever have a say in any human affairs.
Not sure where I gave the impression that I believe government has only one purpose, but I guess we see what we want to see from those with whom we disagree. I would be more worried about those who would sell your children into a lifetime of debt slavery to support the social order of the present, but advocates of limited government are easier to identify, i suppose.
Perhaps true but I do like Calm Yourself's avatar. Another competitor making that choice to compete for the X Prize of Governance. I may agree or disagree and prove why but nothing worse then setting up a an unavailable choice of Rand and Heyek vs ??? ?????. Now let's ask what model and which lnfluencers support the other camp, shall we?
When exactly were these "good ol' days" when the poor were starving? Hmm....Statist?
Every pre-New Deal Depression in America.
It's not a secret.
Under FDR, the poster child for central planning, people starved while Dear Government destroyed crops. Now THAT is some real genius....
Central planning and the "fairness" you so advocate always result in idiocy like the above actions. We haven't been a truly free economy since the turn of the last century.
Wars and plantations...that is what those we give the power to create fairness end up doing....EVERY SINGLE TIME!
People were starving BEFORE FDR became president.
FDR put the Pyramid on the debt note. Lol.
Hayek was lost in theory? Here's a theory that has never been successful: everyone can have equal standing in society, and central planning of an economy will lead to that.
And did you really just blame the koch brothers
And who exactly is advocating for everyone being equal? Straw man argument used by theorists to reach their conclusions. Combining resources to build roads and dams and schools is not the same thing as everyone living in the same house making the same income. The problem is that 400 people have more than 60% of the entire population. We may as well have Kings and Queens. They pass their wealth on from generation to generation, and do nothing for society other than control the rest of us. The problem is NOT that some people have more than others. It's a matter of balance. Shades of gray. Takes some thinking and creative energy. Try it sometime.
You mean try and think exactly as you do, that kind of thinking? No wonder you advocate that theory. The balance you speak of is a forced balance, not determined by markets and individuals but by a a group of planners who believe they know what's best for the collective.
If you leave people alone they will find a balance, and resources will be allocated where they're needed.
The problem with folks like you is that you always think socialism will work, if it's just applied properly.
That's just silly. Humankind is always going to be controlled to some extent by those with power and influence. Throughout the entirety of human history, Kings and Queens and Tribal Leaders and Dictators have arisen where there is great poverty and chaos created by complete lack of social structure and "every man for himself." That is where your theories would lead us if put into practice. Ask human history. Give me one single example where it was not true.
.
I have found that those who make such claims are almost invariably precisely those who desire to wield such power over others.
It is obvious that you only have a limited and warped understanding of what liberty actually means and entails, but to the extent that you do understand it, you clearly despise it. You are a contemptible human being, and I wish to God I did not have to share a planet with monsters such as you.
Your God is a monster, methinks.
...calling mercy a monster, now that is the image of a black hole trying to find a reflection. LetThemEatRand, sounds like the vampire squid has another host. Lol. ''methinks'' Lol, you are not sure of yourself. Lol.
In short...government. We merely replaced the omnipotence of the oligarchy, and DRoK, with that of Mob rule.
Yep. All them people just moved West away from the towns and cities, and the DRoK, for a couple hundred years, because they were lawless assholes that enjoyed Mad Max lifestyles.
Good thing they all ended up with an extremely low lifestyle, with little to no gov't control to tell them how to raise their cattle, build their own house, grow their own food, keep their own peace and trade with others.
That must have been an extremely poverty-stricken lifestyle, and it's a good thing the gov't has wiped out all those free-living scoundrals.
Oh, yeah, /sarc.
So the essence of your argument is that people can never be truely free, so the notion of freedom should be discarded? Give me an example where individuals were given maximum freedom, including maximum property rights, and that freedom and their rights were protected by government. I invariably find those who use the phrase "every man for himself" are really selling a gullable public the idea that people need to surrender their individual freedom to an all powerful government. Charity and helping ones fellow man have existed through the history of mankind and did not need an all powerful government to force one man to help another.
One does not have to use the threat of force in order to combine resources. Why do you believe that popular goods and services can only be provided at the point of a gun? People will voluntary agree to work together for those things which they desire.
Government forces everyone to comply with its own agenda whether that means building a road or bombing a civilian population. You may enjoy being compelled to help kill your fellow man in order to partake of all the wonderful government schools, roads and social programs. But those programs can be better administered and enjoyed by free people than by a murderous government and a compliant citizenry.
Ok, you have just combined all the resources, how do determine how to use those resources without a price mechanism genius? How many shoes? How many socks? Who decides ? What styles? which sizes? Now, multiply times the number of items in the economy.
Please find one citation that shows 400 people have more than 60% of the population. Please define the population and who are the 400.
Who determines the balance? How will the theft of wealth from the creators of wealth encourage them to create it in the first place?
Takes some thinking, try it sometime.
You obviously don't know that the public school system, Skinnerian operant conditioning centers, were DESIGNED at the federal level (both by globalist authoritarian planners and industrial titans) to CREATE A SERVILE WORKING CLASS. Need proof? Read Iserbyte's "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America".
Local control of schools, which worked very well until about 1900, is the only answer.
All of your posts miss the overarching agenda: The stated goal of global government. There is no accurate assessment of societal history and struggles without understanding the true endgame. Otherwise, arguments are non-sequiturs based on a fasle premise.
Iserbyte? Seriously?
I agre with the servile working class thing, btw. There are much better (and less nutty) sources though
If this is true, then why does it require the force of government guns to create this "balance?"
What is this strange obsession that you seem to have with the idea of royalty? You appear to be laboring under the idea that totalitarianism only exists in the embodiment of a single individual. It is a system of oppression that can exist as an individual, or just as easily be a repression by the majority.
In case you forgot your history, the absolute "king" America was rebelling against was a constitutionally limited monarch operating under the guidance of a loosely democratic parliament made up of elites and special interests.
The fight wasn't over anarchistic non government verses absolute monarchy, it was over limited government whose primary function was to protect individual freedom, verses a powerful centralized government operating to maximize the benefits of the few.
Marxists always demand more power to correct an ever widening circle of claimed injustice, but the true benefits end up going to select groups and an ever more distant ruling elite. Is it any wonder that TPTB have done so much to spread it? Had a powerful and coercive central government not been there with TARP, TALF, QE 1,2, ..., much of that wealth inequality you're complaining about would have self adjusted.
The new serfdom, all in the name of democracy and equality.
I agree with Let ThemEatRand. Hayek was the intellectual godfather of Rand, Freidman, Greenspan, etc. who are responsible for the current epidemic of greed and fraud on Wall Street.
Contrary to the prejudices of Hayek and his disciples, a successful combination of socialist governmental responsibility and personal freedom has been achieved in many European countries over the years. And, thanks to the application of social responsibility by governments, it was possible for all sectors of society to enjoy this freedom, not just the well-off.
Ironically, the pure capitalism crowd always conveniently forgets that those corrupting the politicians are always those with the most money and influence. If we did away with the politicians, the top .1% would all buy themselves crowns and armies and the rest is as they say most of human history. I suppose we could decide which team seems the best to fight for. Go Koch brothers!
"If we did away with the politicians, the top .1% would all buy themselves crowns and armies and the rest is as they say most of human history."
I'm pretty sure they are already doing that.
So what you're really saying is, its prefferable for the top .1% to thieve even more from the populace through an alliance with government (crony capitalism/fascism) with such things as Solyndra, LightSquared , Fannie Mae etc.
Its the thought that always counts not the results, right?
At the moment, we still have the ability to vote the fuckers out. In your world, the oligarchs would rule solely by force and there would be no elections. Who is the fool?
"At the moment, we still have the ability to vote the fuckers out."
I submit people like you voted them in.
Alinsky class today?...you're throwing a lot of straw around with no mud to make it all stick together...lol.
In the USA most of the true power is in the executive branch. congress has 2 jobs: a) make the budget b) declare war. neither happened from 2008-2010.
In the USA, the Executive is elected every 4 years, however, the game is rigged by the parties such that the winner of any election will always get two terms. Bob Dole, John Kerry, Romney ... all carefully picked tomatoe cans.
We are drifting closer and closer to fuedalism everyday. In fact, I think our secret patronage chains exceed the open ones in the old days.
.
Oh really? Maybe in the theories of some high school civics textbook, but in the REAL world we can see just how well such attempts REALLY work, such as currently with Ron Paul, against whom the entire political and financial status-quo is mobilized to attack, ridicule, censor, marginalize and subvert his honestly anti-Establishment movement. The ability you talk about is for all practical purposes virtually dead, and has been for quite some time. On the national level at least, "democracy" and true political choice in the USA is nothing but a complete sham, a thin democratic covering a vast oligarchic edifice.
Ask yourself which capitalists are the biggest funders of those against Ron Paul. You'll find them all. But that won't make you think, because you are an idiot.
You are not making any sense --- as usual.
"CRONY capitalists", you mean?
What point are you trying to make?
Oh right. The "crony capitalists" would be all warm and fuzzy if government went away. Then there would be rainbows and unicorns and Ayn Rand's smoking would no longer be an important thing for all of us even though she smoked. I threw that last part in to make you think which is likely impossible for you.
Your post was nonsensical and without meaning, so I was trying to solicit a response from you to clarify it, but clearly you are more interested in casting ideological stones than in intelligent discourse. But from the nature and tone of all your other posts here, I should not be surprised by that I suppose.
My pity for you is matched by my contempt for you. It is one thing to be burdened by the chains of one's oppressors --- it is entirely another thing, vastly more chilling and monstrous, to see somebody such as yourself wear them proudly.
It seems you don't like crony capitalists, but it is the police power of the state that empowes and protects the crony capitalists. You seem confused, except about smoking- that seems to be a real indicator for you. OK, we shoot everybody with cigarettes- the New Socialism.
Bingo!
Is the tobacco reference part of the godwin internet argumentation meme? honest question.
"those corrupting the politicians are always those with the most money and influence."
Frankly I think he has something here, lets immediately dismantle all the big unions they have outgrown their usefullness like royalty their time has come..
You want what I have. In a capitalist society, there is a mechanism for an exchange of value, so that I receive something in return for what is being tendered to you.
What is the exchange mechanism in your ideal society? What value do I receive in exchange for my goods or services?
Hint: the answer to the first question is government coercion, the answer to the second is either nothing or the peace of mind that comes from paying off extortion demands.
Along with huge amounts of sovereign debt that is no longer able to be paid. They mortgaged their future and can't pay. Ask all the PIIGS how that austerity is working out. Ask America when the bill comes due and no one will buy treasuries any more.
There can be no freedom in debt creation and slavery, but there is the illusion until the bill comes due- ask all those people being foreclosed upon...
RM, Rand and Friedman are dead. How can they be responsible for the greed of Wall Street of say the last decade?
As for Greenspan, I recommend you read The Age of Turbulence in regards to Greenspan's service to this country. Have you read the book yet? If the answer is no, Alan Greenspan doesn't require a defensible position from me.
Randian objectivism had an element of Aristotle's stern defense of conceptual standards for rulers. Would you say our current rulers practice good values or not? Values that support a Republic?
Are you and Let Them Eat Rand against Objective Collectivism or Logical Positivism? Do either of you know the difference?
WELL
It's exactly backwards. Only through an all powerful government capable of discarding individual freedom can the rich and powerful create the epidemic of greed and fraud. The housing crisis was caused by government intervention in housing markets, encouraging the making of risky loans in the name of "affordable housing" initatives. Government removed the wall between commercial and investment banks and allowed their fall to become a threat to people on main street. Government at every step used powers never given to it by our founders to create the housing crisis and facilitate the recession and protect rich and powerful banks. And, you want to expand that power and somehow magically expect it won't be abused as it already has been.
"a successful combination of socialist governmental responsibility and personal freedom has been achieved in many European countries over the years. And, thanks to the application of social responsibility by governments, it was possible for all sectors of society to enjoy this freedom, not just the well-off."
Really? Don't think so. Our Bolognese friends' children had to leave Italy to find jobs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/28/europes-lost-generation-young-eu
*buzzer sound*
nope- thanks for playing.
the answer is "If Randians took over, then there would NOT be any welfare or food stamps and over 100 Million serfs on the government dole and we would have a Constitutional currency."
Thank you for that incredibility illuminating response explaining why you are right. It never occurred to me before that you are rubber and I am glue. Or is it the other way around? Either way, bravo for your highly insightful response that added so much to this conversation.
Says the guy who blamed the koch brothers.
They are an example of where your theory would lead. They inherited their wealth. They buy politicians and seek to control society with their wealth. Do you disagree?
Yes, the Koch brother's inheritance should have been confiscated and given to people like you, who didnt earn it, dont deserve and and take it by use of force.
I hear that system works real good in N. Korea
Fine, if you like aristrocracy just say so. Just don't give me this productive class/job creators bullshit to justify your fucking selfish worldview. "Me, Me, Me. Don't take my money. It's mine. Fuck everyone else. I don't care if it took public school to make me what I am. I don't want to fucking fund it. Me Me Me Me Me." Just say it with me, asshole, and stop telling me it's for society's good.
This is awesome LetThemEatRand. You are kicking their ass in every post and they can't even begin to grasp it. All the Randians can do is come back with the same canned, straw man arguments they use with each other and their friends who always agree with them. They don't even know how to actually debate someone about such topics, they just fire back with the "conservative stamp of approval" crap they've heard from their wing-nut mouthpiece heroes who just shout down the opposition. Such is the outcome of turning an economic theory into a religion.
Keep it up, it's fun to watch.
Glad there's another light on out there!
I'm about to call it a night and get away from the computer, but we'll get 'em next time.
I like you...I can't help myself
Sometimes I feel like I'm reading the comment section of Reason here
Excuse me, who is creating the jobs then? Did not Jobs create jobs? Didn't Gates create jobs? Did not Ford realize if you wanted to sell your product, you needed to pay people enough to afford it? Didn't Exxon create jobs? Procter and Gamble? Honda? Toyota?GM?
Fine, if you like aristrocracy just say so. Just don't give me this productive class/job creators bullshit to justify your fucking selfish worldview. "Me, Me, Me. Don't take my money. It's mine."
Says the business owner who takes more of the pie for herself than she allows for her employees.
Hey!...I'm complying the law!
Can't you get it through your head? I am not advocating equality, which is why Hayek was WRONG. I am advocating fairness. Two different things. Shades. of. Gray.
OK. Define fairness. I can't wait.
Hayek never advocated equality, except before the law. It is not about being wrong or right, it is an exploration of opportunities. Hayek knew this. This is the purpose of study and application of gained knowledge. Hayek never presumed to know what was right, he expressed an opinion. He presumed that it was a fluid expansion of knowledge to create a better understanding.
Try it, you might like it.
What you are advocating is COERCION by a group which is exempted from said coercion (the definition of a state), namely a monopoly on law/justice and force, because fairness does not - cannot, should not, and will not - exist without it. This is what ideologues of all socialist flavors have been - for 3 centuries - agitating for.
This is the same delusion that has led to the creation (and destruction) of every nation-state since the first. You think the right degree of the right type of coercion by the right people can emulate true freedom to a "close enough" degree (without the nasty details like conflict, competition, and responsibility).
Fairness is nothing more than the rallying cry of the self-entitled & morally-indignant slave. "If I can't possess what my master possesses then I'll take it from him (or destroy it)" Yours is a moral theory at the heart of which is the word "JEALOUSY" carved in stone. Enforced fairness is the institutionalization of a sniveling, pathetic, oh-so-self-righteous anti-jealous sentimentalism as a guiding moral principle. Your comments leave little question as to your attitude toward the Nietszchean critique of Judeo-Christian morality - Ayn Rand's beliefs were quite obviously in the same vein.
What you are asking for is a shortcut to Soviet-style communism - though your posts are shot-through with more pleasant-sounding Marxist rhetoric - we know where your sympathies lie ("from each ... to each" is as fine a definition of fairness as I've ever heard).
Your attempt to draw a distinction between fairness and equality has imploded in on itself, though you certainly tried hard. You could have spared yourself to effort by simply realizing that what is fair is that which promotes or engenders equality and equality is that which is characterized by fairness. Congratulations, you've discovered the wide world of socialism.
If the best distinction you can offer between equality and fairness is "Two different things. Shades. of. Gray." - the statement is self-contradictory, the latter part in fact arguing my point for me - you may spare yourself any further humiliation which will most assuredly obtain should you choose to press the issue, the semantics are not up for debate.
Not that I'll be around to see it, I'm needed over on the FOX News forum - my handle is LetThemEatGingrich, they just EAT IT UP.
You are all just crying me me me, says the guy who want to confiscate other people's wealth to create the society he wants.
why is it so hard to understand? tyranny takes many forms. there is the tyranny of a corrupt government which libertarians see clearly, but there is also the tyranny of corrupt individuals, networks and corporations with too much power which is more often recognized by the more awake and critical minded of those on the left. the enemy is not just government, or just corporations, or just wealthy individuals...the problem of corruption and tyranny is a problem of unchecked power in any form. checks and balances are needed, no matter what dogmatism you believe in.
How do you pool resources among capitalists without seizing them? Capitalists, by definition, seek personal profit. The US has been a socialistic-fascist state since FDR, becoming more fascist as the decades have passed.
Ayn Rand has has zero inpact on economic policy in the US, however, corporate capitalism has melded with fascist central government to dictate the direction of the economy. The wealthy Elites control the government and the professors and artists act as defenders of the system.
If you actually read Hayek, you might understand this, but instead you lie mired in the false progessiveness of the modern day faux liberal.
We breathlessly await to hear which theorist you prefer. Keynes? Marx?
Marx ... Groucho, that is.
Theory my ass. The use of the free market turned us into one of the greatest nations ever in a very short time. Our downfall has been crony capitalism and socialism bailouts. The history books are full of examples where the people have demanded their government solve an "injustice", only to have that relinquished power come back and bite them in the ass. The jury is still out on healthcare, patriot act and the new NDAA, but my guess is it does not end well for a lot of Americans.
Amen.
Yes, it is narcissistic to want to be free. The list of wealthy leftists includes notables like George Soros, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffest. Of course they are good and the Koch brothers are bad because the Kolch brothers want power for the individual and Soros and Gates want power for the government to enforce equality. Of the top 10 wealthiest people the overwhelming majority are Democrat and many openly favor taking from 1% who already pay 38% of all taxes because they are not paying their fair share. Freedom be damned it's what's fair. I gaurentee you in the end they'll raise the tax rate from 35% to 40% or 45% for the 1%, while protecting the ability of the 1% of 1% like Warren Buffet to continue to pay next to nothing in taxes. The game is always to rig the system so the rich and powerful retain power, then convince the common man that the game is rigged and to fix it you need to give the government even more power to take what it wants from whomever it wants.
Amazing how may negative votes this post received. Simply amazing.
We're fucked....
Tis why they will "Go Galt." So that thy labors do not get looted.
Among the top 10 or 20 wealthiest people in the United States are the children of Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart. They do not run Wal-Mart. They go to country clubs and Monaco and they sail and play polo. Which labor is it exactly that is being looted from those gilded age trust funders by those of us who see a problem here? I'm all for industrialists getting rich from their great ideas and labor so long as they don't get rich from child labor, destroying our common environment, or waging war on innocents. I'm completely against a system of Kings and Queens from inherited wealth.
The labor and creative genius of their family. Your description of their lifestyle reeks of envy and lacks a single citation in support of your propaganda. Obviously, we should be seizing everyone's wealth unless we agree they made it according to our own standards?
What a moron.
Thank you for being honest. Let them eat cake. Fuck the poor.
Lassez faire capitalism and free markets have done more to lift up the poor than any other system designed. Bar none. That is the message of the 1800's. Without banks and government intervention, it would have been even better.
Knowing this, I realize it is the best opportunity for the poor. What do you have to offer? A system that steals their pride and independence? A system that encourages people to go on the public dole when wages come close to entitlements?
You want to steal the capital that could create jobs. You want to waste the value of capital through inefficient allocation by government. You want to enslave the population through debt accumulation.
You appear to want to fuck everyone, including yourself, while the Elites go free. Good plan!
You actually made a point there, although most of your posts put forth a philosophy that leads to the exact system you aim to prevent. The situation with the Waltons would fix itself if we lived in a capitalistic society. Sure the family would hold vast wealth for a generation but it will be squandered through unproductiv ventures and pure greed. Remember the Waltons wealth was not derived through actual business but the holdings of stock. Walmart generates a few hundred billion dollars in revenue but can hardly turn a profit. The economy of scale works against corporations in the same way it does for government. Massive central planning and beurocracy eats away at the body killing it off. The vehicle of the oligarchs is not democracy but the socialist empire of the stock market. The stock market is not a symbol of capitalism or a vehicle of democracy. The stock market prevents upward mobility and squashes competition. The endgame of the public market is one corporation, one currency, and slavery for all. Think about it. You could run a corporation bringing in $60 billion, but if you compete against two $100 billion corporations you are wirtten off. Your only hope is to be bought by one of the $100B corporations creating a $160B corp. Now the other $100B corp can't compete and must merge to create a $260B corp. All the while destroying jobs and competition, but making a few directors and underwriters very rich. The stock market is the problem, always will be.
Is the stock market the problem?
Or is the extreme amount of leverage available to so many of the players the problem?
I don't know.
I agree with much you said but to a certain degree you seem to be arguing the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. Let's not throw out Capitalism just to rid ourselves of Cronyism.
Americans have historically disliked monopolies and expected their government to do something about it. Ignorance of the public, and corruption of government is what has given us the current hot-house environment for monopolies and mega corporations.
Just my 2
Enlighten us where your wealth goes in your last will.
P.S. I'm talking about dynastic wealth, not leaving the family farm. Black. white. Gray. Never mind.
Where does dynastic wealth start 1, 5, 10, 50 million and what forms of that wealth is acceptable to you in the "fairness" you crave? Productive farm land, timber land, mines how much can a man or familyy be worth and what form before your fairness redistributes it to prevent unfair dynasties? Yet you lecture others to think..
Read this guy and be able to identify his archetype quickly as that skill will become more valuable in the next few years.
Wesley, I mean Eat rand still waiting for you to explain "fariness" in terms of dynastic wealth, you could really educate us here.. C'mon Wesley tell us neanderthals how to be "fair"..
Again, be able to identify folks like eat rand; men and women with no center who preach fairness. What they are really doing is raging against the fading of the dark, the worm has turned again and we are at a turning point and socialism, ie: Institutional fairness is being swept back into the dustbin of history. We have the choice of making this change a positive one to true individual sovereignity with of course a moral center guiding us or a fascist degradation of man's freedom. Identifying those who espouse fairness is the true measure of who should be largely excluded from the discourse as their ideology has killed millions and spread misery across the globe.
I agree with you completely.
EatRand is one of those who claims to have all the answers, but never comes up with concise answers to questions like "how much regulation/bureaucracy is enough", "who controls the regulators", or similar.
And in this case here, he has talked about "inherited wealth" and then weasels his way out of letting us taking his statement as he wrote it.
On second thought, maybe he just mistyped his account name and it should have been "Let Them Eat Rant" with them being us.
The naked body scanners at big airports and the roving TSA units now appearing at bus stations, train depots, and small airports might just be there to keep us from "going Galt."
Barackalypse...
Indeed... Barack is readying for peace talks (surrender talks) with the Taliban. I thought the U.S. didn't negotiate with "terorists".
Stop the Rothchilds!
Stick this in your Utopia and smoke it:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-27/u-s-cattle-herd-falls-to-smallest-since-1952-as-drought-destroys-pastures.html
U.S. Cattle Herd Falls to Smallest Since 1952 as Drought Destroys Pastures Jan 27, 2012 5:13 PM ETBeen on top of that .. see http://www.beefbasis.com/ ..the last chart tells the story.. Cattle herd peaked in 1996 and has been collapsing since.
We're going into a new dark age I believe.. production is collapsing while money supply has been soaring .. production can't keep up with debt service and things begin to disintegrate. Welcome to our dark age. Freaking farmers can't even afford to keep cattle stock.. that how fouled up things are..and have been.
That sounds suspiciously like Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics at Yale University, on October 16, 1929 - "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."
Cattle prices here in Australia are high too but so are calves & young steers. The price volatility means you are taking a lot of risk in buying livestock. I'd suggest that is the main reason for the declining herd. Previous grazing practices are also a factor.
Price volatility is the result of an unstable monetary system. You're right about the dark age but when the sun will finally set is a difficult question to answer.
Watch http://blog.ted.com/2011/10/24/how-economic-inequality-harms-societies-richard-wilkinson-on-ted-com/ . The "socialist" Scandinavian countries (really mixed capitalist like US but with the subsidies spread more equally) are doing much better than we are in terms of fundamental health and welfare measures, as is Japan.
The false god of Econ says "GDP must grow," but GDP growth never improves human welfare (above basic levels of meeting human needs)--only more equal distributions than what US has now improve welfare.
The Distribution, the great Taboo of neoclassical Econ, is all that matters for the developed world now. And posts like this one feed the dominant mythology of the age due to the false god of Econ.
See http://animalspiritspage.blogspot.com/2012/01/bretton-woods-super-nova-r...
un-freedom.
Every decade since the depression of the 30's the united states has moved more towards a socialist democracy where we all agree to help out the less fortunate. But like was mentioned above nobody can agree on the end goals. It becomes a monsterous government beuracracy that eats the country from the inside out. Our govt. is spending 1.5 trillion dollars a year more than it takes in. 45 and a half million people on food stamps. Unemployment for 99 weeks. a vast military industrial complex that stretches over the globe and dominates other countries. There really is something for everybody, hawks and doves, repub and democrat. The only thing that will ever really be accomplished though is the destruction of our currency, country, and the freedom alot of people take for granted.
Central planning is derived from control of the currency though, if the central planners destroy it, you are free.
If you wish to be free, destroy the currency.
AUD said: "...to be free, destroy the currency."
The Bernank heard you loud and clear...currency is being destroyed as we speak.
Check.
So why all the complaining!? You'll soon all be free!
You can use <blockquote> too, just click on " in the tool bar.
"The communists and Nazis clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties simply because they competed for the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common, was the liberal of the old type."
Tyler, you should do the occasional chapter from Rothbard, Hayek, Mises etc. on weekends. I'm sure many around the world have never been exposed to them.
Bravo!
The only problem with the statement is that it is wrong.
Which part...his or mine?
Communism & fascism do spring from the same well of thought. State control of the individual as proposed by Engels & Marx.
Or mine...that many people around the world have never been exposed to them?
Seeya in the AM for the follow up.
Anton Dtrexler's original NSDAP was oddly socialist (directed toward labor/workers) but after Hitler took over the party, Drexler was jettisoned. Some time before the 1923 putsch attempt in Munich the Nazis became a Big Business party which they remained until they were destroyed in 1945.
Not common knowledge is that Nazis took support from several large New York City banks (Morgan, Brown Brothers Harriman) along with Shell oil.
Most of the NSDAP membership was gained from various 'stahlhelm' (steel helmet) groups or bands of disaffected World War One veterans. Many were unemployable (lacked social skills), many also believed that Germany's victory was snatched from defeat in the end by communists (who led the November Revolution against the Ludendorff junta in 1918).
In October, 1918, US General John 'Black Jack' Pershing demanded the Allies on the Western front ignore German armistice pleas and totally destroy the German army, march upon Berlin and destroy that city along with every trace of the German establishment. He was prescient, predicting that the same allies would need to return to the battlefield in 25 years to finish the job.
In this sense, the Nazis were more the offspring of French and English governments' desire to end the war prematurely rather than the communists.
people are only equal in their right to prosperity, a job, a house etc. When everyone is forced to have a equal share (re-distibution) and life is planned by the gubment is where we cross over to the dark side...the road to socialism if you will.....
You want your suffering a little bit at a time, or all at once?
Dogs run free, why can't we?
Tyler , i believe that one of Hayek's strongest argument was how the SPIRIT of the people changes... to SHEEPS...
USA vs Soviet Russia - Cuba vs Singapore - South vs North Korea etc etc...
Bullish for Police State
Hayek was a simpleton
And while you say that, all you can do is simple use simple terms to degrade his views and simplistic tactics such as bashing his personal life as a basis for his views.
I guess that makes you a simpleton.
What's your point let them eatRand ? All those things can probably be done for 20% of the budget- all the rest is entitlement spending, militarism and debt payments due to the deficit spending for vote buying... Check the breakdown... Also some of these things could be provided at state level and if you dont like what one state does you could move to another... Its called LIBERTY .
I agree the system is broken. I don't think the answer is letting the wealthy elite take over. We need to take back our government. We The People, and all that (and by "people," I specifically do not mean fucking corporations).
Give or take, 70 percent of English land is owned by 0.6 of an elite class
while the average Brit gets to Share the sweat of his brow with millions upon millions of immigrants, providing medical, housing, education, roads, police,military,etc, for them.
If you ever get out of your wee certain world, give England a visit, not the tourist, postcard England but 'the grey areas, full of grey people eating grey food. Yes , yes,NHS, but last time I checked, a nation in it's death throws and so seriously bankrupt, the mind boggles, a once great land, brought to this by, Socialism and the aristocracy that keeps the sheeple in line.
It is what the USA could become, not pretty.
http://www.aristocracyuk.co.uk/
The answer is fixing the system. The answer to a system of excessive power is not more power, it is restraining that power and giving it back to the individual. For the most part, the corporations you seem to despise got rich by providing things people or other corporations deemed to be worth the money they spent on them. What you want is the power to come in after the fact and judge that they have been too highly rewarded for the value they have produced for society. Capitalism, with appropriate regulation to ensure it operates so, lets those providing labor, goods and services to be rewarded by those who benefit from them according the value they place on what they receive. It is free people exercising their freedom to exchange goods, without coersion, at a price they both agree provides value to them both. How is it fair then, to come in after the fact and cry fowl that some people are getting too rich after we reaped the benefit of the things we purchased from them.
Just as Hayek predicted:
"Thus the legislative body will be reduced to choosing the persons who are to have practically absolute power. The whole system will tend toward that kind of dictatorship in which the head of the government is position by popular vote, but where he has all the powers at his command to make certain that the vote will go in the direction he desires."
...all our elected officials calling in the so called "experts" are what gave us the privately owned entitiy that has made every tax dollar for generations, in service of and that is the Federal REserve Corporation...look what happened when it came time to make room for a new bailout--Citicorp buys Solomon Smith Barney even though it is illegal and then their henchman Rubin comes in as an expert to seal the deal by pushing for the Glass Steagall act to be revoked...then our next henchman Paulson pushes for more leverage in the banks then pretends that he has no idea what happened when they all collapse and he lets his buddies win the "let Lehman die" bet, passes out the winnings from the back door of AIG then claims that he can't do what an honest truth teller would do (one request, in one day to Congress to ask for powers to "unwind" the toosacrosanct tofail)instead he lobbies for three weeks for TARP. ..... No freedom in this...and it all goes back to every one who tells the truth, gets deomonized...like Andrew Jackson, saving us from a central bank, then going down in history as the President who caused the trail of tears. The fact that he took down the central bank gets deomonized, and then for a measure of certailnty , that gets paired with the loss of so many American Indians lives...we have the same kind of pairings going on in our political rhetoric today and it is just pathetic. Where have all the thinkers gone, long time passing...
Sorry, Hayek and von Mises were misguided (probably because they never went outside).
Hitler had nothing to do with socialsm except for the name 'socialist' in NSDAP which was a party with a specific platform: racial cleansing directed against Jews, vengeance against the West, lebensraum and slavery for the East, military regimentation of society under the party. The model for the Nazi state was Spain of Philip II:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Spain
Pre-WWII Germany was a republic in name only, with both establishment and public desiring a return to monarchy. The closest they were able to get (what the West would allow) was Hindenberg. The hypermilitaristic Germans were fascists long before the country turned to Hitler, if there had been no Htiler the Germans would have invented him (or elected Ernst Rohm as Fuhrer). German finances were a mess not because of socialism but rather the burdens of massive war debts and reparations due to France and UK (which Germany ultimately defaulted on, keep that in mind. Germany also defaulted after WWII even as reparations were NOT claimed by way of the 3d Reich against the GDR.)
The closest the communists came to power in Germany was in 1919 when a revolution was crushed by the Stahlhelm and von Seeckt.
German finances were on the mend post-Bruning by way of Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht and 'military-Keynesianism' along with Schacht's selective repudiation of German debt (they paid JP Morgan and stiffed the rest.)
The Austrians had problems relating to 'the real world', none of their doctrines are applicable to anything other than cocktail party chatter. However, they do present that always appealing 'easy solution, the easy side of easy' which is always more and more spam for big business (which cannot pay its own way).
nvm
Hitler advocated taking from the rich to give to the poor because of the inequity of society. His justification was exactly that used by modern day socialists. Redistribution of wealth was part of the Twenty-Five Points" programme. To say he was not a socialist is a bit of a stretch since he used socialist ideas to gain popular appeal.
The left will do anything to unload their serial failures on the right, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin etc.. The left side of the political spectrum has killed millions in the name of "fairness" run from fairness as the guns come out to enforce it shortly after it's introduction.
Hitler was a politician who gained power by his party winning elections, like all politicians he made promises that he had no intention of keeping.
Hitler waged unrelenting war against the Jews, he equally hated Catholics but refused to attack them (except at the very end) because it would have eroded public support for Hitler.
Hitler attempted to gain power by putsch in 1923. This attempt failed, many of his supporters were shot including Herman Goering who ended up addicted to morphine as a consequence of his wounds. Hitler was arrested, a reason he wasn't taken away and shot at once was Hitler's association with Erich Ludendorff and his powerful financial backers within German industry.
The left and the right are meaningless because all are the lackeys of industrialists and hegemony of industrial enterprises. In this sense there is no difference between Hayek and Kim Il Sung or Juan Peron. All insist on industrialization and 'modernity' with different 'adjustments' to be made ... to make the unworkable system somehow to work.
There is no way to make this system work neither the strong man nor tricky-lying economist will do it. The end result is destruction, which is taking place right now under everyone's noses.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Makes me think of Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans. People were displaced to shelters, in other cities, and Barbara Bush stated, "it works out well for them; they don't get to take vacations."
Yeah, I have a hard time thinking of Houston as a vacation spot.
Can anybody direct me to Zero Hedge?
I didn't mean to intrude on the many Huffpo comments.
Bottom Line:
“Dependency on government to care for us in all ways has caused the majority of people and their congressional representatives to act in a way that guarantees our problems will get worse.
We are witnessing the destruction of the liberties that took centuries to establish in order to rein in the kings of old.”
-Ron Paul.. “Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That affect Our Freedom”, Grand Central Publishing 2011, p. 259
I know what you mean, but honestly, politics is all that matters now. I am a ZH noob and I would shepard more people here if I could explain to my fellow taxpayers that there is more going on than Timmy using IMF funds to bail Europe, and he will retire from his post after he does so.
But there really isnt anything more to it than that. No different than when hank paulson said there would be tanks in the streets without TARP and QE1. he then retires.
ZH explains the "how and why", but at this stage all people are interested in is the "what and when."
The days of Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How appear to be just a distant memory in our society. [sigh]
If the Huffington Post was written on toilet paper, at least it would have one use...
Hayek....thank you for saying better what I feel and believe, than I can.
Utopia is a " February" , buy the dip in XAU!
i really believe seeing 'socialism' as the problem is misplaced. there are plenty of positive examples of countries which combine 'socialist' policies with respect for individual rights and freedoms. they are not at all bad places to live.
just take one look at the countries rated as having the best press freedom...
http://forums.vr-zone.com/chit-chatting/1949125-reporters-without-border...
finland and norway in place 1!
then estonia, netherlands, austria, iceland, luxembourg, switzerland...all of these countries have some policies which would be considered 'socialist' by american standards. yet which place does the USA get with all of its anti-socialist thought? Try place 47 along with argentina and romania.
freedom and socialism can and should coexist, if managed thoughtfully and with principle. there are enough examples.
I love how the any idea of making the world better by pooling resources and working together is branded as Utopian.
Meanwhile, the "Libertarian" concept of a world in which EVERYTHING is private property, yet people can pick and choose to work in any job they would like and never be a wage slave. Further EVERY consumer will have 100% knowledge about EVERY economic decision they make, so the markets will always be fair and free. In Libertarian world, even the poorest people have 100% equal rights, status and power as the wealthiest of people. Never in the history of the world has such a situation existed outside of tribal cultures. Yet this fantasy idealism is not called Utopian.
Did I just kick that straw man's ass or what?
Libertarians want to voluntarily agree to pool resources. The pooling of resources and individual freedom are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, projects undertaken by free people without coercion are more efficient that projects created through threats of violence.
You are the one presenting a straw man argument because a Utopia is a society designed and ruled from the top down. A truly free society can not be a Utopia.
Crockett , It's not Buffalo Season. I like you're posts.
Hee haw!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN2g2hpproo
CrockettAlmanac.com, his sails unfurled, his eyes uncovered...
Gilgamesh, a king. At Uruk. He tormented his subjects. He made them angry. They cried out aloud, "Send us a companion for our king! Spare us from his madness!"
I'll take Gilgamesh.
Uh, no on the straw man thing but I am impressed with your ability to see yourself as a victor against a man with no brain.
The truth about the pooling of resources is that it's great when you get together with you neighbors, friends or family members to all chip in on some common goal.
But when government at any level screws up the use of resources then comes back to us to get MORE resources and then MORE and MORE and MORE, well, you get the idea.
Shrug baby. Atlas did.
I see sarcasm shoots right past you. Not uncommon when religious beliefs get involved.
Yep, government at ALL levels is crappy. I can agree with that in many ways. My HOA is the most inept attempt at trying to implement anything, yet has more petty infighting than the Republican party with Ron Paul in it. Their example has really soured me on this idea that somehow moving all decision to the smallest local level is the answer to all problems.
Believe me, I am no pro-government, pro-socialist person in any way. However, I find this whole self-righteous, Randian argument rather inept. It's a nice idea, but it has little to no basis in reality.
Thus far in my real life I've yet to encounter a self-proclaimed Libertarian who is willing to sacrifice much of themselves or their "stuff" for the greater good. Which leads me to conclude that if this system is changed due to the citizens uprising or forcing a change at great personal risk or sacrifice, it will NOT be the Rand disciples and Libertarian types getting the job done. They will be too busy typing on internet bulletin boards bitching about things and pointing out all of the flaws in theory and strategies of the people actually doing the work. Then, once all is done, they will "voluntarily" offer to come in and show everyone how to run things.
Sorry if that seems harsh, but it's been my experience in life thus far. I'm quite willing to be proven wrong.
+1000
That was a GREAT post! You certainly have few thoughts on your mind. +1
"Germany" the only keyword, Tyler? lol
So beautifully said!
I've read this before but I printed it out and re-read it while taking a nice long shit. It's great reading and makes perfect sense but you have to understand the works of Alexander Fraser Tytler to really understand why we are doomed.
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
http://the-compass.org/2012/01/15/democracy-musings/
It's become quite clear that the apex of American middle class civilization was precisely the point where the bitching was the most pronounced (oh, the irony): Archie Bunker's early 1970s.
The downward grind has been relentless since then. Two incomes as a necessity was just the start.
Ah two incomes. That's an interesting point you bring up.
cause and effect, cause and efect, cause and effect...
Look at the labor participation rate for men in this article
http://the-compass.org/2012/01/18/402/
On the flip side women wanted more rights in the work force....and they got it. There is a chart for women in the labor force but even that metric is starting to fade.
There was a day where men were the band that held a family together but with the advent of political correctness everything changed. Every woman wants equal rights... until they get pregnant. Now instead of being reliant on the father of the child the woman figures she has support from the government. This is really where the fundamentals of the society break down and where the welfare state becomes a negative feedback loop.
You better hope your wife doesn't see this, you'll be on the couch until doomsday.
Bob, you left out the last line, (and the most important one): From dependency back to bondage! (although I'll bet most ZHer's either already knew that one, or can figure it out themselves).
A nuclear solution. Ya take a leader, who must be a pregnant woman, from each country of the world. Ya put her office in the same building with all the other world leaders. Ya give each leader equal access to a nuclear winter button. Ya git rid of all the millitaries - ya don't need them anymore. Ya git rid of all the banks and ya let the monetary system be run by the Open Source Software dudes. All rules and regulations are made by referendum - ya won't need politicians either. Problem solved. Ya go home and live happily ever after. Why complicate things?
Because 9 months later you have a gal with PPD, a screaming baby and an itchy trigger finger ?
These are fascinating times..
Undoubtedly, though, inflation aggravated every evil, ruined every chance of national revival or individual success, and eventually produced precisely the conditions in which extremists of Right and Left could raise the mob against the State, set class against class, race against race, family against family, husband against wife, trade against trade, town against country. It undermined national resolution when simple want or need might have bolstered it. Partly because of its unfairly discriminatory nature, it brought out the worst in everybody — industrialist and worker, farmer and peasant, banker and shopkeeper, politician and civil servant, housewife, soldier, merchant, tradesman, miner, moneylender, pensioner, doctor, trade union leader, student, tourist -especially the tourist. It caused fear and insecurity among those who had already known too much of both. It fostered xenophobia. It promoted contempt for government and the subversion of law and order. It corrupted even where corruption had been unknown, and too often where it should have been impossible. It was the worst possible prelude — although detached from it by several years — to the great depression; and thus to what followed.
- When Money Dies
I wonder how many problems would be fixed here if we just placed term limits on Congress? 8-10 years max and you are done forever. Oh, and you are forbidden to work for any firm that lobbies Congress for the rest of your life too. Oh, and only a total of two members of your immediate family can ever serve in Congress.
"Capitalism" is desperately trying to codify its' guaranteed "success" into law through the use of debt. The highest return IS to write the laws.
The system is broken because the laws that were put into place to protect us are either ignored or have been re-written to favor those already entrenched at the top and they want to stay there.
The problem for them will be that I don't think most Americans, once they understand what "they" are trying to do, will accept this peacefully.
Having a Government with term limits for Congress and a Constitutional Amendment stating that the Government cannot spend more than it takes in would be a great place to start.