This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The Socialization Of America Is Economically Impossible

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market

The Socialization Of America Is Economically Impossible

I understand the dream of the common socialist.  I was, after all, once a Democrat.  I understand the disparity created in our society by corporatism (not capitalism, though some foolish socialists see them as exactly the same).  I understand the drive and the desire to help other human beings, especially those in dire need, and the tendency to see government as the ultimate solution to all our problems.  That said, let’s be honest; government is in the end just a tool used by one group or another to implement a particular methodology or set of principles.  Unfortunately, what most socialists today don’t seem to understand is that no matter what strategies they devise, they will NEVER have control.  And, those they wish to help will be led to suffer, because the establishment does not care about them, or you.  The establishment does not think of what it can give, it thinks about what it can take.  Socialism, in the minds of the elites, is a con-game which allows them to quarry the favor of the serfs, and nothing more.

There are other powers at work in this world; powers that have the ability to play both sides of the political spectrum.  The money elite have been wielding the false left/right paradigm for centuries, and to great effect.  Whether socialism or corporatism prevails, they are the final victors, and the game continues onward…

Knowing this fact, I find that my reactions to the entire Obamacare debate rather muddled.  Really, I see the whole event as a kind of circus, a mirage, a distraction.  Perhaps it is because I am first and foremost an economic analyst, and when looking at Obamacare and socialization in general, I see no tangibility.  I see no threat beyond what we as Americans already face.  Let me explain…

Socialism Is Failure

A country that feels the need to socialize has, in my view, already failed culturally.  It is an open admission by the public that they are unwilling or unable to take responsibility for their own prosperity.  If a society is not able to function in a healthy economic manner without the force of government (an abstract entity often manipulated by corrupt ideals) resulting in the creation of artificial and precarious balance using fiat stimulus and overt taxation, then the people of that country are not remotely independent and self sufficient.  That is to say, only a nation filled with pathetic overgrown children would actually need government to enforce mandatory “charity”, welfare, healthcare, etc.  A truly healthy society supported by strong and self sustainable individuals would not beg to be parented by government.  If a country is so unbalanced as to stoop to socialism, then its ailments already extend far beyond anything government (even good government) could ever hope to cure.

Obamacare, its tentative application, and those who blindly support its introduction in the U.S., are an example of a weak people groveling for handouts they do not work for nor deserve.  Socialism is defeat.  It is a waving of the white flag by a society and the trading of that culture’s liberty for the illusion of fiscal security.  It is the act of an adolescent and naïve populace groveling for an allowance from their “motherland”.

If one wants to consider what a socialized America would actually be like, why not examine the track record of the EU, a group of nations which have dabbled extensively in the principles of collective centralization and various levels of socialism, including the extremes of communism and fascism (and yes folks, both are derived from a socialist/collectivist foundation, despite what pseudo-intellectuals and propagandized academics will try and tell you). 

What success have they accomplished in the course of their Utopian endeavors? 

Well, more than half of the states of the European Union have already reached debt to GDP ratios well beyond the limit required to retain membership:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/06/19/europe.debt.explainer/index.html

Several countries, including the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, are all in the midst of severe debt crisis.  The Euro itself is on the verge of disintegration, and in all likelihood, the EU charter will be reexamined, and mutated into something completely different to what exists today.  The central bankers will blame European countries and their “insistence” on maintaining sovereign control over their finances, but ultimately, it is not sovereignty that strangles the EU, but its ridiculous supranational status which is entirely misapplied and has created a state of interdependency that has weakened every member nation to the point of disaster.

It should be painfully clear to anyone considering socialism as a viable option for America that this kind of system requires fiscal discipline and a vast amount of SAVINGS.  Notice I say “savings” and not “money”.  Money is a carnival ride; an illusion of wealth that can be printed from thin air.  Savings is an actual concrete storage of real capital, an ongoing surplus of manufacturing and production capability resulting in the stockpiling of working credit and ample employment.  Most of the countries of the EU do not have such savings, and never did.  In fact, most European countries have operated for decades on a loss.  They have never been able to live with the direct and indirect investments of outside players.  Because of this, EU countries are utterly unable to keep up with the grand concepts of socialism, and have buried themselves under the crushing debts generated by entitlement programs.

America is no different.

Forget Universal Healthcare – The U.S. Is Bust

There has been a pervasive delusion amongst pro-socialism movements in the United States that we are the “richest country in the world”.  They claim it is “absurd” that the establishment system does not pay for our healthcare with such riches at its disposal.  They consistently rant about Canadian Healthcare and its record of universal treatment.  The problem is, they ignore the details…

Canada’s national debt stands at around $1.1 Trillion (officially).  Canada’s population sits at around 34 Million.  America’s national debt stands at around $15 Trillion (officially) and our population sits at around 313 Million.  The two countries are entirely different animals.  To clamor for a Canadian style healthcare program for a country with completely opposite economic parameters is idiocy, or lunacy, or both.

Officially, our economy has already broken the 100% debt to GDP threshold.  Unofficially, but more accurately, the U.S. national debt sits closer to $120 Trillion.  This number accounts not only for public debt, but intragovernmental debt, and implicit debt, meaning, the debt obligations the government has committed to for the near future:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/trillion_the_shocking_true_size_tOxcrobUBUup9IEW3vQAhJ

I would also like to quickly note that mainstream economists back in 2011 were predicting the U.S. would reach 101% of GDP by 2021.  It is now 2012, only one year later, and we have already crossed the 101% marker.

Add to this the projected costs of Obamacare ($17 Trillion in estimated long term unfunded obligations), and what you get is a broke-ass country:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sessions-obamacare-costs-2.6-trillion-in-ten-years/article/2500877

The only factor which has stayed the tide of a full-blown macro-implosion of the U.S. is the world reserve status of our currency.  The dollar is all we have left.  Period.  But don’t count on that for much longer either.  With multiple nations, including China and Japan (our largest foreign debt holders) quietly forming bilateral trade agreements cutting out the use of the greenback, it will not be long before its world reserve status disappears as well, and then, we are on our own.  The private Federal Reserve can print all they want, but if other countries no longer need dollars to facilitate cross border trade, then what we will get is hyperinflation, or stagflation.  Obamacare only expedites this process by generated even more liabilities we cannot cover, thereby giving the central bank even more excuse to churn out dollars with wild abandon.

To put it plainly, all those people who believe America is the “richest country in the world” are living in mushroom land.  We-are-broke.  Bust.  In the red.  In the hole.  Insolvent.  Our pockets have become lint traps.  We’re switching from fine Belgian beer to Busch Light.  And, we can’t all move back in with our parents like so many Obamacare proponents I have met…

Go Ahead, Try To Enforce Obamacare…

We-have-no-money.  Therefore, the debate over universal socialized medicine is pointless.  It is mathematically and economically impossible to implement.  What the Supreme Court says on the subject of socialization certainly matters in terms of principle, and they have failed Americans spectacularly in that respect (or served their globalist sugar-daddies well; however you want to look at it).  But, in terms of finance, the Supreme Court’s shocking decision means nothing.

One of Ron Paul’s primary arguments against the ongoing wars in the Middle East has always been that whether one agrees with these conflicts or not is irrelevant.  The U.S. does not have the means to fund them.  Eventually, we will break the bank and the dollar to maintain our presence in the region, and thus, the wars WILL end, one way or another.  The same philosophy goes for Obamacare and every other socializing program presented in America.

They will say that taxation will cover the costs; but how do you raise taxes on a populace that is growing more destitute every year.  How do you take money from people if they do not have it?  This tactic doesn’t seem to be working very well for Europe.  Also, keep in mind that as population and inflation grow exponentially, so will costs.  Meaning, the taxation will have to expand as fast, or faster, than the expenditures.  This is why so many opponents of Obamacare voice concerns over population reduction programs and rejected care; they are an inevitable end result.  When you institutionalize health and life under the auspices of bureaucracy, you must also invariably institutionalize death.  Population and life suddenly become a numbers issue to the state, rather than a moral issue.

They will say that the penalties to those who refuse to participate will cover the costs of the rest.  Again, how to you take money from people that do not have it?  What if millions of people simply refuse to participate, AND refuse to pay penalties?

They will say “tax the corporations”, and we could, but, as the derivatives crisis has proven, most major corporations in the U.S. are on the government take just to survive.  We cannot have corporate bailouts and increased corporate taxation at the same time.  The bailouts would have to end, the companies would collapse (as they should, but that’s besides the point), and we’re right back to where we started.  Just like our government, most corporations also operate on false wealth.  They will not be paying for Obamacare anytime soon.

They will say that it is all for the greater good, but since when has the establishment been qualified to define what the “greater good” is?  Is Obamacare really a matter of conscience?  Or, is it a farce flaunted about as if it is a matter of conscience?

They will say that people must be forced to do what is right for the group.  I say, such hubris has always led to catastrophe.  Usually, it is the select beneficiaries of tyrannical cultures that call for the might of the central government to be wrought upon the rest of the citizenry.  Not to do right by conscience, but to satiate their desire for control.  Men love government as long as it is imposing their particular world view, and as long as the tables never turn.

They will say that current medical practices and costs are terrible and something must be done.  I agree.  However, Obamacare is not the answer.  If there is one thing that wears thin upon my mind it is the one track thinking of the progressive ilk who know that Obama’s healthcare initiative is a stop gap at best, but barrel forward anyway because “at least it is something different”.

“Don’t you want to help the poor”, they say. 

Certainly.  I want to help them by saving them from the disaster that socialism will inevitably lead to.    

Principles and existentialist debates aside, the primary economic question still remains; where is a realistic plan to pay for this monstrosity of a program?  I have yet to see a single grounded solution to the quandary.  How does one pay for something he will never be able to afford?  If there are no means, there will be no Obamacare.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 07/05/2012 - 09:54 | 2588519 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/04/the-return-of-marxism

"Democracy is the road to socialism" --K.Marx

I understand the disparity created in our society by corporatism (not capitalism, though some foolish socialists see them as exactly the same).

They don't. They understand that one is the logical conclusion of the other. It's you who remains foolish and confused.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:03 | 2588564 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

Whoever downvoted you is a simple minded twit living in the false paradigm that the US is a democracy. 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:14 | 2588607 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Got to downvote both of you. Corporatism has nothing to do with capitalism, unless you think Mussolini was a capitalist.

Corporatism is the Third Way, the fascist way of running economics under the State's control. It is driven by socialist ideology just like Mussolini was, although it alllows private property as long as the State directs its uses and/or as long as it can be made to help the State. Socialists and fascists always fought each other because they vie for the same votes; they just don't use the same tools nor do they agree on every detail. Bottom line, they're all collectivists and they hate individualism and capitalism.

 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:36 | 2588726 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Yes,  and the socialization of America is economically impossible only assuming America is a (U.S.) Constitutional republic with a free capitalist market.

As America is no longer a Constitutional republic, but some type of pseudo democratic authoritarian kleptocracy in transition to totalitarianism, it can and will be “socialized” a great deal more.

It’s the road that has to be followed to get to the serfdom part.



Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:56 | 2588882 The They
The They's picture

I agree with both Manthong and NTSH.  on another note:

"government is in the end just a tool used by one group or another to implement a particular methodology or set of principles."

I completely disagree with this characterization of government.  The government is an interested party in the situation it stands over.  It wants to maintain its own power at the expense of all those who would opose it.  Characterizing it as a mere "tool" is exactly the kind of misunderstanding that leads to socialist thinking in the first place.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:09 | 2588950 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

I'm curious why there weren't any abandoned knapsacks in the area where those people with supporting posters in the foto were demonstrating...

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:38 | 2589068 Red Heeler
Red Heeler's picture

The woman in the photo is most likely a government employee. Notice that she is well-groomed and clothed and is wearing shades to avoid positive identification. Notice that the sign is manufactured - not hand made. She didn't make the sign, she was given the sign, which was most likely printed with your tax dollars. I would venture to guess that everyone in the photo is on the government dole. 

No need to scare everyone off with a false flag.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:35 | 2589255 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

She's wearing her hook nose like a badge of honor... (but at least she shaves her armpits)...

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:20 | 2589202 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Governments are The People. Government is the means by which people are able to force their will upon everybody else.

It is completely immoral.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:07 | 2588940 casey13
casey13's picture

I have to agree. The response to the problems growing worse will be even more government intervention. The people who promote socialism know that the current government is not working but they still believe if only they can get the right government it will then be ok. It won't but that won't stop them from trying.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:26 | 2589000 SeattleBruce
SeattleBruce's picture

Trying the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results...what is that?  Oh yes - the definition of insanity.  We need to understand who our enemies are (those that control the debt based monetary system), and then march into action.  There are solutions that would allow us to rebuild the US.

http://economicedge.blogspot.com/2009/12/freedoms-vision-outline.html

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:34 | 2588736 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

I agree with you that corporatism has nothing to do with capitalism.  My comment was about the dellusion of democracy.  Downvote be damned. 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:31 | 2589028 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

To the extent that what you meant was that modern "democracy" leads to socialism, I agree with you. I would only add that modern "democracy" is not what democracy was meant to be by the early philosophers who developped the vision of the democratic ideal (power to the people). It has been turned over its head by the cancer that is socialist thought since Rousseau and his likes...

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:42 | 2588795 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

Even with all of your up votes... what you are saying doesn't necessarily oppose what Richard and Gene were saying... The point that they are making, and a point that I think is worthy of consideration, will capitalism eventually morph into Corporatism or Fascism?  

I will continue to maintain that it's the monetary system gone awry... not any -ism, that has sown the seeds of our pending economic doom.  What we should be considering, humanity in general, is what we want the next thing to look like... if anything is left.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:43 | 2588803 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

Amen brother?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:50 | 2588837 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Money overwhelms any political process when it is permitted to.  It doesn't matter if it's the mythically "perfect" capitalism or a mixed system or a full-on fascist system or even state-directed socialist/communist system.

When the relative wealth discrepancy between the "commoner" and the "power-elite" becomes sufficiently great, there's no escape from a virtual feudalism.  "Society" can't operate when the life-long "value" of a man is less than the amount of a drunken bar-bet between the rulers.

I'd expect to be junked to oblivion for pointing this out, but what the hell, if it weren't true, there'd be societies out there in which the ultra-wealthy don't dominate the political process.

Find one.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:50 | 2589120 PonziBeaver
PonziBeaver's picture

One example would be Cuba. The elites don't live much better than the commoners over there. They are also starting to leverage the benefits of small-scale capitalism too - farmers get to keep some of what they produce and sell it. Free market for milk, tomatoes, mangoes, etc.

Their socialist health care system is somewhat affordable for the government because the don't waste money on big pharma, big insurance, etc. Restless leg syndrome? Acid reflux? Give me a fuckin' break!

 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:58 | 2589138 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Er...I wouldn't qualify anyone in Cuba as "ultra-wealthy," though.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:06 | 2589160 PonziBeaver
PonziBeaver's picture

You are correct ... an ultra-wealthy class has not evolved there to subvert the political process and practice crony capitalism.

I gave you a thumbs-up, by the way.

I like capitalism because it works, just don't think some things can be trusted to the private sector unless maybe you can remove the evil croneyism (examples: police, fire, healthcare, prisons, armed forces).

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:57 | 2588875 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

"Even with all of your up votes... what you are saying doesn't necessarily oppose what Richard and Gene were saying... "

Gene & Rich are BOTH unpleasant dickheads...

why are you even trying to legitimize their opinions?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:01 | 2589144 pods
pods's picture

Well for one their opinions seem to be following EXACTLY what is going on today.

Who gives a shit how unpleasant they are?  

Every analysis of "Capitalism" I have done has led to the exact same thing.  Exactly where we are today.

So why the hell should be bowing at the altar of "capitalism?"

Capitalism begets power to the people who can best please their fellow man.  Others will cry at the power obtained.  So rules will be made to limit the power of the wealthy.  But, since capitalism purports to be the best use of capital, the smart people realize that buying influence is their best use of their capital.

And we always end up where we are.

Why are the proponents of Marxism so thoroughly hated?

Because everyone knows that the adage "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" never works in the real world.

My beef is that why the hell can't people use the same sort of scrutiny for our hallowed "capitalist" society.

No, people will act like where we are is some form of fluke or bastardization of capitalism, when in reality, it IS the logical outcome of it.

Don't get me wrong, I love free markets.  But with free markets comes success.  With success comes jealousy and that leads to rules to punish the "capitalists" who realize this and use the public anger/envy to implement rules which further solidify their control over the market.

This kneejerk defense of capitalism therefore enters the realm of belief, which cannot be argued.

pods

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:18 | 2589198 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

Good post.  The opposition to these ideas is part of our our conditioning.  We are conditioned to pray at the alter of "capitalism" without giving it much critical thought.  What it everyone's critique of what is wrong with the other thing is right, while the solution that they may prefer is no better?  It could be.  Maybe only the nihilists are right.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:22 | 2589207 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

Such an odd statement/question.  Do you evaluate a position based on how you feel about the person presenting it?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 21:20 | 2590686 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

junk club.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:45 | 2588811 Lebensphilosoph
Lebensphilosoph's picture

Corporatism has nothing to do with capitalism, unless you think Mussolini was a capitalist.

Mussonlin was no capitalist, true, but he was no corporatist either. Fascism is not 'corporatism' as you understand it, and the Fascist government of Italy was not run by big business cartels nor had it any love for them - National Socialist Germany even less so.

they're all collectivists and they hate individualism and capitalism.

You present these as the only two possibilities, much like 'capitalism' and 'socialism', 'right' and 'left' and all the other stale old classifications of one-dimensional post-French Revolutionary political discourse. Collectivism and individualism are both of them artificial phenomena of the state.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:07 | 2588943 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

+1'000'000

three completely different concepts, all with the same word

Corporativism in the Middle Ages: tradesmen of the same trade banding together and forming something that resembles more our modern trade unions which rule the (city-) state.

Corporativism in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: the ruling party banging the capitalist's and worker's representative's heads together until they agree to function for the "glory of" the state.

Corporativism today: "private" MegaCorporations unleashing legions of lobbyists to buy political support for laws that make the triumph of the MegaCorporation possible, that of course squeezes everything that is "little".

----

Lebensphilosoph, your last phrase is really, really thought provoking, my compliments. I have no answer to that, yet.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:56 | 2589132 Creepy Lurker
Creepy Lurker's picture

"I have no answer to that, yet."

I'd like to take a crack at it; I believe he's refering to the stateless society - anarchism. For the record, I have a lot of sympathy for the idea. I'd like nothing better than to have the governemnt out of my life and be left alone, the real meaning of lassez-faire.

Having said that, I don't think its a realistic possibility. No matter how many mechanisms you concoct that rely on the preservation of "your good name" there will always be enough people who don't give a damn about thier good name and will dominate others. Unless someone comes up with a way to breed this out of the human species, anarchism won't work. It will just end up with some huge portion of the population being sold like cattle and agreeing to it "voluntarily" because the alternative is starvation.

Now look at all the "isms." Socialism, Fascism, Capitalism, Feudalism, and Theocracy. You can come up with more, but they are subsets of the above. All of them, including Theocracy, end up as a type of Fuedalism, just with different groups as the aristocracy.

By all means, pick this apart, because I don't really want it to be true. But no solution can be found or proposed until reality is fully understood.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:28 | 2589230 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

that is also a great post... good work down here.  

"But no solution can be found or proposed until reality is fully understood"... and perhaps, no solution can be found, at all.  It's likely cyclical and inevitable.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:38 | 2589271 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Unless someone comes up with a way to breed this out of the human species, anarchism won't work.

May I recommend "The Bomb in the Brain" and other similar work by Stefan Molyneaux. His theory being that this is not hereditary, but environmental. Mostly the result of how we treat children during their formative years. Spanking, verbal/emotional abuse, etc. Simplistically, this results in kids growing up with the understanding that force is the way to get what you want. Interesting stuff.

No matter how many mechanisms you concoct that rely on the preservation of "your good name" there will always be enough people who don't give a damn about thier good name and will dominate others.....It will just end up with some huge portion of the population being sold like cattle and agreeing to it "voluntarily" because the alternative is starvation.

In other words, we end up right back where we are. Where do I sign up? I am willing to give it a try, because this shit isn't working.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 21:33 | 2590707 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

making my way down this part of the thread, up voting great points made - couldn't up vote yours due to the bug that block quote as first line creates,

but wanted to let you know yours is also a great point, of how environ-mental/culture creates the participants, and certainly treating children as unruly animals instead of humans that are wanted/loved results in skewed adults that are still acting out their emotional rebellion.

many of the amrkns I have come into contact with are emotionally stunted around their teen years, with little desire to explore anything outside their comfort zone of "me, first!" bragging rights, and bullying tones in conversations, which suggests they've been defending their turf for a long, long time. . .

there has been much cultural upheaval these past couple of decades, and "traditional" roles are under scrutiny, including partnerships/marriage and parenting in particular. . . as it should be, things were stultified for so long, to no one's benefit.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:38 | 2589272 Lebensphilosoph
Lebensphilosoph's picture

Feudalism, however, is a construct of historians which is out of fashion with today's medievalists. And certainly no 'Feudalism' was never planned out by intellectuals as some ideological system!

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:22 | 2589209 Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

 

Run the full circle on either fascism or communism and you wind up in the same place on your knees in front of a ditch with a gun to the back of your head.  The only difference is the size of the bullet, either nine millimeter parabellum or thirty caliber Tokarev.

 

Equality is a mirage.  We are inherently unequal.  We come into the world naked and screaming and we go out pretty much the same way.  Those two points in our existence are the only times that we as a species are even remotely equal.  Our disparity is the product of infinite combinations of environment and genetics.  These two factors in constant struggle with each other produce the individual.  Statists deny the individual.  In so doing they deny nature.  Efforts to deny nature always fail.  The only time you have perfect order and symmetry is in the cemetery.  

 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:16 | 2589186 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Allow me to lend you my /sarcasm flag.

 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 13:51 | 2589567 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Exactly, and thanks, Dr. Head!

"..quarry the favor of the serfs..."

I think he meant, "curry" not "quarry" --- but he may speak a funky dialect.

Myself, I am a strong supporter for economic democracy, something we've yet to experience.

 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:06 | 2588574 El
El's picture

The U.S. is not a democracy. Although our dear leaders have forgotten, it is a republic based upon the Constitution. I wish we would remind them.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:14 | 2588609 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Consti-what?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:02 | 2588917 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

pated...

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:44 | 2589298 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Hard to drop a duece with a big red, white, and blue dick up our asses.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:16 | 2588619 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

The U.S. is not a democracy.

A republic? OK that makes sense. Why is the author complaining about 'socialism'?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:16 | 2588621 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

And you know what a Republic is? It's the Res Publica, the PUBLIC THING. That which is owned by everyone but nobody in particular. Quite socialist, right?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:20 | 2588642 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

I want a federation. With starships.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 13:19 | 2589454 falak pema
falak pema's picture

would an earthship made of mud and recycled glass bottles suffice?

earthship : les maisons extraordinaires de michael Reynolds - Le blog de terredhortaille.over-blog.com

See the youtube on the house built by a Brit in France.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:34 | 2589251 Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

 

Democracies are ruled by the passion of the populace. As a result, they fall victim to charismatics. Our republic was supposed to be ruled by virtue.  What separated it from the rest, what chained the Leviathan and checked the dictatorship of the majority was the Bill of Rights.  It is no small thing these rights have been eviscerated.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:53 | 2589347 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

Ruled by virtue? Like the king-philosopher of ancient Greece times?

I love it how ZH Americans love democracy. Rule by virtue... Aristocracy you mean? You kinda got that already. In order to enter congress you need to be a 1% (it's not like that in all countries, be sure of that). And there are several dynasties going around there too. That's modern aristocratic rule for you, republic non democratic boy...

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:20 | 2588644 mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

Sorry, the US is NO LONGER a republic based on the Constitution. If you don't believe me, stand on your fourth amendment rights the next time a policeman hassles you- when (if) you wake up from your taser-induced coma, you'll realize that yesterday was a commemoration exercise, not a celebration of current realities.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:21 | 2588649 AGuy
AGuy's picture

"Although our dear leaders have forgotten, it is a republic based upon the Constitution."

It was once a republic at this point it would be difficult to call it a republic. Our "elected" representitves only listen to the people (or corporations) with the biggest pocketbooks. The name of the game is to remove wealth from the middle class.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:35 | 2588745 CH1
CH1's picture

For a brief time, it WAS a republic based upon the Constitution.

Fixed it for ya.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:39 | 2588773 aerojet
aerojet's picture

You're living in la-la land if you think the US is not a democracy.  It is one, as much as voting even matters when both sides are captured, all despite whatever the Constitution says.  It is 2012, the Constitution is dead--we just saw an unprecedented decision by the Supreme Court to favor socialized medicine by any means necessary.  The Constitution does not constrain state power, it never has.  So, please, live in that reality.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:00 | 2588902 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

A program to require health-insurance is not "socialized medicine" by ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:22 | 2588990 Umh
Umh's picture

When I think about the way obamacare is being implemented I keep coming to the idea that it's the worst of private & socialized cobbled together to sound fair while screwing people over.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:43 | 2589092 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

It only "sounds fair" to the folks who haven't already had problems with private health insurance companies.  Many people aren't fooled.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 14:42 | 2589730 mkhs
mkhs's picture

Blunderdog

What is it when everyone pays regardless of need to provide for those with great need?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 16:59 | 2590172 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

In this case, it's called "insurance."  That's how insurance works.  You might want to read up on it, it can be important.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 13:56 | 2592649 Papasmurf
Papasmurf's picture

Hasn't been that in a long time.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:58 | 2588890 Lebensphilosoph
Lebensphilosoph's picture

It's not logically necessary, but it is practical the conclusion of every conceivable form of government in a world in which the value of money has supplanted that of tradition. In the last analysis, the river cannot be frozen and the past cannot return. With man as he is today, there is no permanent political state any more than there can be no state at all. So the delusion of Marx, Fukuyama and Mises and every other worshiper of mammon.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 15:08 | 2589820 reader2010
reader2010's picture

If Marx were born 30 years late,  the Stand Oil could have recuited him helping to do some more God's work. 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 09:55 | 2588534 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

LMFAO!!!!  Corporate america has been socializing PRIVATE losses for 30+ years.  Sorry but, it's too late, America has been socialized under several fascist regimes.  Too fucking funny.  Stop dancing around the real problem, prosecute the fucking fraud and restore real consequences for bad behavior.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:17 | 2588623 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

+1000

 

real consequences for bad behavior.   

 

Indeed!!!!

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:31 | 2588718 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

FREE JON CORZINE!!!!

 

Oh wait.....he is.

 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:37 | 2588754 CH1
CH1's picture

prosecute the fucking fraud

And who, pray tell, would do that? Another faction of the same evil beast?

It is time to ditch the system and build better things.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:47 | 2588827 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Fine with me, crash the system, crash it now.  Only then will compensation find it's way back to people who's labor is of real value.

Fucking bring it.  Lots of people seem to identify the problems.  The major problem being that in order to prosectute the fraud many of these same people will have to indicte themselves.  Anything else you care to add obvious man?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 13:35 | 2589503 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Is that you Karl?

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 13:58 | 2592657 Papasmurf
Papasmurf's picture

The AG is working fast and furious on this fraud prosecution.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 09:55 | 2588538 Peter K
Peter K's picture

Socialism es muerte :)

Can't be repeated enough :)))))

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:17 | 2588629 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

Pues en dando tan severo en hablar con entereza, quizás no hallaréis cabeza en que se os calze el sombrero...

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:57 | 2588887 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

I see ZH doesn't like Calderón de la Barca. It figures...

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 09:55 | 2588541 t_kAyk
t_kAyk's picture

"Really, I see the whole event as a kind of circus, a mirage, a distraction."

Fucking DUH

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:01 | 2588545 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

"Socialism, in the minds of the elites, is a con-game which allows them to quarry the favor of the serfs, and nothing more. There are other powers at work in this world; powers that have the ability to play both sides of the political spectrum. The money elite have been wielding the false left/right paradigm for centuries, and to great effect. Whether socialism or corporatism prevails, they are the final victors, and the game continues onward…"

Socialism, communism, democracy, republic, whatever the "system" used to control the masses, the bottom line is that it is all just various forms of modern plantation living.

Welcome to the New World Order. It isn't coming, it's already here. Accept that fact, then recapture your own personal sovereignty and in the process take back the power you freely give away on a daily basis. Regardless of whether we wish to admit it or not, WE feed and empower the very control system under which we chaff. We are our own slave masters, our own jailers and our own oppressors.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:04 | 2588571 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Epic rant. It's been said before:

"What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." --Das Kapital

You, sir, have been outed. Out with your commie thoughts.

 

 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:21 | 2588647 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Too funny Gene. Your world is so black and white while mine is ten thousands shades of grey. Even while declaring that we should break from the left-right paradigm, still you cling to the same thinking meme.

Freedom begins within. Why do we plead for freedom from our slavery when we do not demand of ourselves that we think, then act, like free men?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:26 | 2588675 Crisismode
Crisismode's picture

We can never be truly free.

 

Anything you posess, any person you love, any residence you live in, any wealth you have saved . . .

 

all can be taken away from you by any and all thugs in power, and you can be left with nothing.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:45 | 2588751 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

".....and you can be left with nothing."

They can never take my mind, spirit and individuality, three things they most want to control. Thus no matter what they take, THEY have nothing and I have it all.

That is what it's all about by being personally sovereign. Anything less by me is an open invitation for them to control my body and subjugate my mind. It all begins (and ends if I am not sovereign) within.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:14 | 2589185 robobbob
robobbob's picture

love your work CD, but......

in the end, wasn't Winston left unable to remember what the solution was for 2+2 ?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:39 | 2589274 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I think there is a point where the mind is so conditioned that the spiritual flame of life could be snuffed out. But considering how dead I was 25 years ago and how far I've come in my rebirth I seriously doubt that point will ever be reached.

However, we do have many miles to go before we are free.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 13:48 | 2589555 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Right, so if you want to keep your head out of a rat cage we better get to work NOW..   If Winston and 10,000 of his closest friends had gotten busy he may have died yes, but honorably  there is a difference.  The last shred of illusion has been stripped by Roberts in this sense we have been done a favor.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:30 | 2588704 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

+76,3

A moral society cannot exist without personal responsibility. Personal responsibility cannot exist without freedom to act and to make choices. Thus the immoral world will exist as long as individual freedom is denied. And individual freedom will be denied as long as we keep working for our slavemasters' plan.

Starve the beast.

Go Galt.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:34 | 2588738 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Apparently you haven't noticed that most of my posts are extremely polarizing --call it really just poll taking-- to serve the purpose of exposing the absurdity of these exchanges. What do they reveal in the end? That most are still stuck in a state of mind fighting against phantoms: words, concepts, ideas; in other words your 'left-right paradigm'

It's a great way of exploring, leads to all kinds of unexpected results. There's just one catch: you must contradict yourself at least once a day, preferably on the same thread.

 

 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:39 | 2588768 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I am just your humble foil. Parry away my friend. :>)

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 13:54 | 2589578 sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Weird, the way we guys experience 10,000 shades of grey, while women only required "50 Shades of Grey" ????

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:01 | 2588909 Lebensphilosoph
Lebensphilosoph's picture

Two centuries and still counting ...

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:18 | 2588630 1Inthebeginning
1Inthebeginning's picture

hi.  i think that what you just said is that we all need to be entrepreneurs and stop depending on the hope of a free lunch.  is that correct?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:26 | 2588673 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Once we are personally sovereign, and by this I mean so much more than simply living within a false paradigm of "freedom" to choose from a narrow preprogrammed menu, we become the ultimate entrepreneurial warrior.

Actually, once we begin to seek personal sovereignty, the concept of being entrepreneurial takes on an entirely new meaning.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:23 | 2588997 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

very good! though remember that in order to belong to the category of the sovereigns, you have to be recognized as such by other sovereigns. ergo this is again a social matter.

let's say we recognize each other as sovereigns. fine. our kids? our grandkids? all sovereigns, even when toddlers? or are they our subjects or even our property? and don't let me start about women.

because sovereign means you will let nobody interfere with your will. it's the ultimative machismo. it's the response to the question "you and which army?" with the answer: "this one behind me".

there are truly "personal" sovereigns on this world, but they are usually in the family format and feral, i.e. hunted: the Mafia.

there were truly "personal" sovereigns on this world, but usually they had to swear some kind of fealty for defense purposes: the nobility

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:00 | 2589122 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I strongly disagree with your definition of sovereign. You are using the definition the control system has provided us in order to limit our mind, to obscure all the other possibilities.

Being sovereign is not necessarily a physical thing, though it can and often does manifest physically. In my view and from my perspective it's all about being totally responsible for and to oneself regardless of the insanity that surrounds us.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 03:06 | 2591039 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

And I strongly disagree with the use of this word - "sovereign" - in a completely different context than the historic, which is quite physical, has a lot to do with dominance, raw power and the law of the jungle.

Don't misunderstand me, I sympathize with your chain of thoughts. Nevertheless, I see your (noble) struggle to define what you yearn for as an American Exception, based on the fact that a great part of the American History that shaped (romantically) your thoughts happened in a low-intensity zone of the Great Imperial Struggle that, sadly, defines the history of Humanity.

Even today, all imperial borders, the flash points of struggle, war and true misery, are far, far away from your "Heartland" - 9/11 being an exception.

I have this mental picture of a jacuzzi party in a villa in the eye of the storm, while all around people get killed by raging air and water, the jacuzzi partiers complain about the decreasing quality of their martinis and discuss the properties of bubbling water as a mixture of two elements.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 03:25 | 2591049 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The US of A is the eye of the US citizenism storm.

Best place to avoid suffering from certain sides of US citizenism.

Moving out of the US only leads to be more exposed to fall on the wrong side of US citizenism.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 12:55 | 2592374 akak
akak's picture

The Middle Kingdom is the brown eye of Chinese Citizenism mealstorm.

Best place to avoid honesty, integrity and intelligent discussion is smack middle of denialistic Chinese Citizenism.

Moving away from Chinese Citizenism only leads to introspection, honest self-evaluation and the denial of monolizing of the speeching means and denialistic blobbing-uppityness.

 

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 13:17 | 2592453 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The best place to avoid honesty, integrity and intelligent discussion is a US citizen place.

A special category should be created for US citizens because they outmatch the others too much.

From the beginning, with stuff like US citizens declaring liberty as a unalienable right and keeping slaves.

Beating US citizens at the game will be quite an achievement.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 13:27 | 2592485 akak
akak's picture

The best place to avoid a flush toilet is a Chinese Citizenism place.

A special category should be created for Chinese Citizenism citizens because they outmatch the roadside fecal output of others too much.

From the beginning, with stuff like the totalitarian excesses and universal misery inflicted by great hero of China founding, Chin Shi Huang Di in 246 BC.

Beating Chinese Citizenism citizens at hypocrisy game and wok-calling-kettle-blackism will be quite an achievement.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 13:30 | 2592506 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Chinese when they are not US citizens can be hypocrit. Just like the rest of the non US citizen world.

To be an hypocrit, one has to be able to be honest.

US citizens can not be hypocrits because they can not be honest.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 14:20 | 2592524 akak
akak's picture

Chinese when they are not shitting on side of road can be human. Just like the rest of the non Chinse Citizenism citizen world.

To be a Chinese Citizenism citizen, one has to be able to shit on side of road unselfconsciously, like pre-roasted dog.

US citizens can not be Chinese Citizenism citizens because they do not shit on sides of road.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 18:50 | 2593520 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous hypocritically babbled:

To be an hypocrit, one has to be able to be honest.

To be an Chinese citizenism comedian, one must enter an Chinese citizenism Peoples Liberation Opium Parlour having an wifi hotspot, spark up an hookah filled with an fist sized chunk of opium, inhale deeply and muchly of the smoke until attaining an state of flying high again, and then just let the retardity flow.

US citizens can not be hypocrits because they can not be honest.

Chinese citizenism comedian made me laugh with double good funny, because he is founding father of US citizenism.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 08:11 | 2591240 i-dog
i-dog's picture

I gave you an uptick for your first paragraph, Ghordie, and your necessary attempt to bring the conversation back to the real world of political intrigue. But now I'm going to take issue with your [unfortunate] habit of then devolving into a false dichotomy, followed by a straw man. I'll try to expand your thinking ;)

It is not simply a choice between fealty and elimination.

The ruling class themselves recognise this and, in an attempt to maintain a "balance of power" between each other, rather than cede sovereignty, form alliances of equal sovereign standing. They do it by treaty, by marriage and by gentleman's agreement. It's just another form of contract between consenting adults -- with no court of competent jurisdiction to resolve any subsequent disputes. Indeed, inter-national disputes can only be solved by arbitration ... just like with eBay!

In times past, each resource gathering alliance would then attempt to expand their alliance until such time as it could overwhelm another alliance militarily and then either absorb it or assert suzerainty. Such is the stuff of human progress from family, to tribe, to nation, to empire, to perpetual war.

But, as in the past, technology brings change. The gun brought significant power into the hands of the individual, such that the sovereign was no longer safe simply by calling up a large number of sword-wielding nobles. Most recently, weapons of mass destruction have further devolved power down to as small a group as a dozen goat herders in the hills of Afghanistan. Bomb us and we'll take you down, too ... M.A.D.

The world of the 21st century truly has the means available to embark on a new paradigm -- where any small "state" -- with no government and no standing military, just mutual assistance treaties -- has the means to defend itself from the encroachment of neighbouring hierarchical states with designs on "helping them to achieve democracy", or to "recognise the one true god".

Those days of constant war should soon be passed and we should be moving forward with improving the overall human condition through free trade and exchange (while isolated pockets make war on each other to the amusement of those not participating). There is no more undiscovered or unarmed part of the planet to subjugate and some generation after ours will finally come to realise this.

But the ruling class (including your Church) will not easily give up their desire to form a hierarchical dominion over the planet in a new 'dark age' of feudalism. Coming real soon now ... on both sides of both ponds!

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 11:40 | 2592067 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

i-dog, you would make your statements much clearer to me by pointing out where the false dichtonomy lies and where my famigerate straw men are, in your opinion...

on one side, you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to paint a stark picture of one ruling class trying to cling to power. I see many, and I see them usually (dialectically?) engaged with their (captive?) "followership", for example the 1m strong Chinese party flanked by 1m Chinese millionaires with the new and rising 240m strong Chinese middle class (avg. income 10'000 per year).

a new paradigm? Count me in. I just don't see "how". If I have to speculate it would have to start with what historians call a "power vacuum" that simply does not get filled by any "power", and then progressing in more and more "power-free" territories.

Your words resound with the hope of the Sermon of the Mount - a staple of "my Church", too! ;-) In my early, firebrand youth, I drove more than a few seminarists to distraction by accusing them to use the "meekness principle" to subjugate the masses for the elites, by the way...

I would also have to speculate that any arbitration - like in your eBay example - would either have to function without law enforcement, or, as I read your previous posts correctly, with the cooperation of local law enforcement agencies that would arise spontanously/organically and be based on your voluntariness (?).

Meanwhile, I have visited some dozen active military bases and warships and passed by another five dozen, in my life. On this side of the two ponds, it's easy, they are nearly everywhere. Yes, they do restrict my thinking in what is possible/feasible. Which leads me again to what you seem to agree with me, at least in part: it's easy to dream a new, peaceful paradigm where and when conflict is a very distant amusement.

Which leads me to my limited european view: we can't start a new paradigm. Hell, since 1971 we can't even go back to the gold standard. And just look at our attempts in limiting government(s), for example by restricting budgetary power and how the MegaBanks are fighing it with tooth and claw. We are still trying to limit the inroads of the worst MegaCorporations, with some small victory in between, but all in all, we can't change much alone.

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 01:37 | 2594190 i-dog
i-dog's picture

Ghordie, your whole approach seems to revolve around battling! Put down the gun!!

What I'm talking about is separating from the battle: gathering like-minded people in a defined area, having the means of M.A.D. to discourage others from attacking, setting an example that others may later wish to follow, and getting on with living in peace and trading with the "outside world".

For a start, you painted a picture of three different ruling classes in China battling each other - where there is in fact just one ruling class, with members in all 3 of your groups.

Just as in medieval Europe, a family in the "ruling class" will have the eldest son inherit the family estates and go about his rent seeking business. The second son would be given a tidy sum, and a suitable arranged marriage, and be left to join the merchant world to make his own fortune - using all the contacts and clout that his seed captial and family status afforded him. Meanwhile another son would join the military, by purchasing a senior officer rank, and proceed to plunder another kingdom. While yet another son would join the clergy and, again using his family's contacts and position, quickly move up the ranks to a bishopric and proceed to direct the social affairs of the peasants in his domain -- from his own magnificent palace and imposing cathedral -- in concert with the lord of the land of that domain, rather than in opposition. It is no different in today's China (except that the clergy have been replaced by local party functionaries imposing the 'religion' of the state).

In other words, the landed, merchant and religious groups are all controlled at the top by the same small group of families working as a single team. Families come and go over long periods of time and, occasionally, individual family members may even attempt to buck the system. There are plenty of examples of palace coups, religious schisms and trade wars, but the system remains in place and the number of seats around the table remains essentially constant through the changing faces in attendance.

That is the system from which we volutarists wish to disengage.

We don't want you to join us ... we just want you to leave us alone! And we would use nuclear, biological or chemical deterrents against any aggressor that wished to try to subjugate us back into the feudal fold! We have that advantage over the founding fathers of America, who at all times had to compromise in order to avoid full-scale invasion and annihilation from Europe.

On the small technical questions you raise:

  1. It would not require a power vacuum to start. All it would take is one "state" to secede from the US or EU and declare that it will not have a central government that could be captured or corrupted, and that it will resist any external attempts to impose one -- by the use of WMD against any aggressor. Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone!
     
    Voluntarists don't want the whole world to be forced to adopt the same template. That is the "gunboat diplomacy" way of the old emperors, clergy and political ideologues - whether Alexander, Muhammad, Urban, Loyola or Marx. They all wanted (and still want) to rule the world by force and impose their singular "vision" of how everybody should live. It is tiresome and absurd!
     
    We simply want to be able to trade with you while you go about beating each other up in your attempts to "capture the flag".
  2. Arbitration does not require law enforcement. There is no "law" to enforce - only the agreed terms of a contract (or treaty) between parties. All that remains is the questions as to whether one has breached those terms and, if so, what is the appropriate compensation due to the other[s].
     
    As I said, there is no court of competent jurisdiction, nor "police force", to deal with disputes between sovereigns, drug traffickers, slave traders, mafiosi, or eBay participants. They all settle their differences through a pre-agreed means of arbitration and the application of "shunning" from further participation of those who then refuse to abide by the arbitration. It works because the potential future loss as a result of shunning and damaged reputation is generally far greater than the cost of compensation.

Whether the people of Europe, or of any individual state within Europe, choose to adopt a new paradigm is somewhat academic. The current one is broken beyond repair so, either they adopt one voluntarily or the NWO will be imposed on them. I don't care one way or the other - because as soon as one state somewhere on the planet adopts a voluntarist approach, I'll be on the first conveyance heading there to help them.

In the meantime, best of luck with your European Dream and for every man, woman and child in Europe to comply with it (or else)!

Sat, 07/07/2012 - 09:21 | 2594546 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Thank you, i-dog, for this thoughtful, and thought provoking, contribution.

For quite some time now, I've had similar and/or parallel thoughts about possible, and workable, replacements for the insane and crumbling status quo.

I believe that a significant portion of humanity would really like nothing more than simply to live their lives and be left alone. The sociopathic lust for power over others is a mental defect which has plagued human societies for many dozens of centuries.

At this stage of history, one of the problems we face is that nation states have become far too large. Their size makes them unwieldy; a one-size-fits-all approach breaks down and fails on such a scale. Their size also concentrates power, which draws sociopaths in a manner not unlike that of fresh cow droppings drawing flies.

Unfortunately, most of the human social arrangements to emerge were (and are), intentionally or not, ripe for abuse by such sociopathy. The only counterexample that comes to mind is the potlatch system of the Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest.

Of course, these potlatching societies had no means to repel the Canadian and American federal governments, which passed laws to criminalize the potlatch. Defense against external societies/states under sociopath control has always been the stumbling block for me when trying to picture communities built upon voluntary interactions. Your idea of the purely defensive WMD is fascinating.

I am in agreement with you on the idea of voluntary arbitration of disputes, and the importance of maintaining a good reputation. Arbitrators known for their fairness and impartiality would be in high demand, and disreputable ones shunned. The current legal system is a labyrinth of complexity and corruption; justice is incidental at best, and you certainly aren't given the right to approve or reject the judge assigned to your case.

Lastly, the idea of shunning is a good one. I would only augment it with the practice of banishment from the community for those whose egregious conduct has become a menace.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:42 | 2588793 aerojet
aerojet's picture

The only way to accomplish that is to not have a family or obligations, not work, perhaps have no electricity.  It's primitivism, and unrealistic.  I hate the domination system, but I won't reject civilization.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:51 | 2588848 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

May I respectfully suggest that your view is very narrow? Civilization is not conditional upon "domination".

However, that's what the neighborhood bully wants you to believe. If he can get you to submit without ever resisting, his domination is complete and you willingly gave it to him.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:21 | 2589205 bankruptcylawyer
bankruptcylawyer's picture

CD====ZH has been becoming closer to a tea-party esque vision lately. 

 

the problem is---as times get worse and the corruption becomes more endemic----you wind up seeing that the people in the middle, who want to discuss all aspects of the 'truth' are marginalized precisely because the corruption and fraud force people who reject corruption and fraud to choose a team. 

 

there are 2 ways to fight the corruption and fraud -----one way is through collective communitarian action ---the other way through 'independent' rights to be free of the fraud ( free from taxes, government spending programs, fees, giant military spending, and the general complex of the state ) . 

both of these sides traditionaly have met in the middle and operated less corrupt , or rather managably corrupt governments. Now , these sides have been pushed apart entirely . people on the far right and far left may have plenty of the same desires to destroy the corrupt system we have, but they have intractably separte visions for how this could and should happen. 

 

it is a sad story. there are a number of people out there who have been hoping for a while that the far left and far right would band together to fight the beast. This is NOT going to happen. it's not soley about identity politics, or the differences in philosophy between the movements, it's also not just a communications problem or a tunnel vision problem. it's a whole bunch of different problems mixed togheter that basically guarantee the far right and far left cannot agree to disagree for the purposes of taking down the establishment. 

there is also another reason, both sides see the 'establishment' as heading into a self-destructive spiral where the endgame is that it implodes. during this implosion they believe there will be a natural fight to take over and that this is simply the only outcome. 

I believe they are wrong is some ways. Look at Russia. did the far left or far right come out on top? Not exactly, I think the old corruption was replaced by a new form of corruption. 

 

I think the lessons of russia are that now is a time where you want to make a choice to join the department of homeland security or the mafia or start your own organized crime syndicate. if you look at the statiscs of gangs in america, they are picking up pace. recruitment is at an all time high and gangs have even been sending their members to the military to learn how to use weapons. 

the point is, when things collapse, the stazi and the maffia are the only wons who come out better. the soviety security appartus may have mostly lost money, especially the military, but the KGB basically whethered the storm, changed their name, and is now a much more powerful organization, in bed with the mafia and organized crime of russia. 

in a period of lawlessness that the far left and far right are expecting to happen, are wishing to happen, they will both lose. 

in a period of status quo---they will also both lose. 

 

I don't see the far left and far right winning in any sense in america. particularly if they do not set aside their differences to pursue an agenda of starting a legitimate third party. I know I know, it's hard to believe. I for one would be hoping to help make this happen. I am a member of the independence party of new york. it's the biggest third party in the country and it's a huge joke. 

 

 

 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:58 | 2589372 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

The only winning move, is not to play. A political solution is flatly, not possible, because power structures will not be torn down by those who are merely seeking to implement their brand of power.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 03:33 | 2591054 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The only winning move, is not to play.
________________________

Non participation can be only be a winning move when you have not lost yet.

Quite a lot of US citizens, due to their US citizen nature, wish to abandon the game because they are slowly but surely moving to the losers'side.

Non participation will give them nothing at this point.

So far, those US citizens have supported the rules of the game, as long as they feel they were on the right side of the game.

Denouncing the rules of the game while you have supported them when you were winning and wishing for non participation as soon as you are losing is what can be called being a sore loser.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 03:28 | 2591050 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

you wind up seeing that the people in the middle, who want to discuss all aspects of the 'truth' are marginalized precisely because the corruption and fraud force people who reject corruption and fraud to choose a team.

_______________________

US citizen middle class has long chosen their team. And the team is US citizen middle class.

One congregating rule for US citizen middle class team is:

upper class should not do on middle class what middle class does on lower class and benefit from.

That is what it means to be in the middle for US citizen middle class.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 12:52 | 2592351 akak
akak's picture

My dog has fleas.

Chinese Citizenism fleas.

Can you recommend an appropriate method of eradicating them?

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 12:57 | 2592383 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Can you recommend an appropriate method of eradicating them?
__________________

That should be asked to a US citizen. Their technics to kill and eliminate life forms are the best in human history.

Better ask experts. And US citizens know a lot in the field of destruction.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 13:11 | 2592437 akak
akak's picture

Oh.

I thought maybe if I disguised the fleas as Tibetans, and gave him to a Chinese Citizenism citizen such as yourself, the eradication would proceed forthwith.

(Which would only leave the final step of saving my dog from the wok.)

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 18:57 | 2593538 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous  said:

That should be asked to a US citizen.

Funny, then, how you, world's number one US citizenism patriot with wearing green hat, stepped forward to answer.

Their technics to kill and eliminate life forms are the best in human history.

Made me laugh. You probably have dozens of recipes for cooking of household pets. As for elimination, well, look on your roadsides...

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:44 | 2589094 1Inthebeginning
1Inthebeginning's picture

Please research Earthships by Reynolds.  It is a smartly designed home that virtually eliminates utilities.  And Food forests which are 3 dimensional gardens that require minimal care and provide abundant food.  Sepp Holzer is an amazing farmer who is pushing the boundaries of what can be done in agriculture.  Your actual survival needs are pretty simple: thermo regulation, water, food, community, commerce.  And their is no need not to have the best of modern civilization.  You just need to be very smart about it.  Its an engineering problem.  It has an engineering solution.  Their is no profit incentive for people to tell you about these things.  Making you independent isn't exactly going to provide an economic mote that allows for the ability to raise prices and capture a steady revenue stream.  Implementation of this model would be cheap, easy, and effective.  If more people are aware of this model then, their will be less resistance to its implementation for those who wish to have more control over their own lives.  The requirements of this life style are constant learning and improvement.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:42 | 2589291 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I just did a quick search. Lots to read and absorb.

Thank you.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 03:40 | 2591055 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Houses come on 1.5 acres and so on.

How could that be cheap?

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 09:58 | 2591658 1Inthebeginning
1Inthebeginning's picture

Hi my Chinese friend.  Isn't Wu Dang Mountain beautiful.  I guess you could say that it is relatively cheaper.  The house can be made out of recycled materials.  Also in some places land is very cheap ($1,500/acre) because no one wants to live their.  Like certain areas of Michigan: example Detroit. The earthship design allows you to live off the utility grid where other people who are dependent on the grid can't live. Some people live in the middle of the New Mexico desert off the grid.  Interesting stuff.  Good luck.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 09:58 | 2588547 Ima anal sphincter
Ima anal sphincter's picture

Evil deviant crooks run the show. Until this situation is corrected. This country and this world will continue to sink into an anarchist cesspool.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 09:58 | 2588549 TrulyStupid
TrulyStupid's picture

Obamacare is not socialism, it is corporatism - forced enrollment in a private for profit system. It is granting a monopoly to a cartel of insurance companies and health care corporations. Socialism is dead and dying and replaced by corporatism - fascism.

Eisenhower's fears have come to fruition, the military industrial bankster complex has usurped power and wealth and is in the process of forcing permanent austerity and and intellectual poverty on a stupified population. The wars and burgeoning national security state are permanent features of the nw normal... as they were always intended to be.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:00 | 2588556 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Correct, now be a good serf and get back to work.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:12 | 2588599 crawldaddy
crawldaddy's picture

exactly, why is it the govt has no problem spending hundreds of billions to protect us average schmoes from some scary dude living in a acage who mathmatically speaking poses NO DANGER to us, YET, will not spend any more money protecting us from the very real danger of disease which will in fact kill most of us?

 

One one hand my life is so freakin precious we have a military larger than the next 28 combined to protect me.

On the other hand , my life is so freakin meaningless, that 50 million of us dont even have insurance or access or means for basic healthcare.

 

so what is it, do we matter or dont we...

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:18 | 2588632 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

We don't matter.

How about this? The USSR collapsed and had its military budget slashed dramatically right? Were they ever invaded? How do we justify our MIC budget? Spooky old guys in caves on the other side of the planet?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:23 | 2588657 crawldaddy
crawldaddy's picture

I agree, we only matter when we can be used as propaganda.  Of course we dont need military spending like we have, but yet everytime someone looks to cut it,  its the =vapors+, think about the citizens, blah blah blah..

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 16:45 | 2590150 Hype Alert
Hype Alert's picture

Of course we matter.  Why else would every agency have their own SWAT teams kicking in doors just to protect you from yourself?  Seriously, if you want to cut some expenses, just look at the equipment and vehicles each and every SWAT team has.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:43 | 2588804 aerojet
aerojet's picture

I think you know the answer--it was never about doing right by the people.  It has always been about power in a big way.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:15 | 2588615 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

The people that started this like Samuel P Bush were all extremely rich. So, why did they do it? To be more rich?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:24 | 2588662 crawldaddy
crawldaddy's picture

yeah, greed is a vice. 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:27 | 2588680 Monedas
Monedas's picture

Eisenhower never considered the rise of the welfare complex and government unions which dwarf the military !  We keep getting slapped in the face with that military complex statement .... and it was true !   The real story, ignored by the libs, is the growth of government employees and their dependent vote franchisees !     Liberals will wring all the juice out of a lie like no else !        Monedas      1929         Comedy Jihad Quit Picking On Ike To Defend Socialism

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:03 | 2588920 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

Other than fascist control of the population, ObamaTax has nothing to do with "healthcare." It's all about Cloward-Piven, obliterating the economy and ushering in a Maoist/Political Islamic system per Bill Ayers, one of the most prolific "visitors" to the White House.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:35 | 2588555 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

The only way the US can continue welfare programs - is by printing its own sovereign currency absent from a Central Bank.

That's why the mandate won't work: it's a system controlled by outside forces, both by Big Pharma/Hospitals/Insurance companies on one end, and the currency they deal with on the other (The Federal Reserve).  And when outside forces control the game, the bottom gets the shit end of the stick.  See: the ECB and PIIGS.

When you allow Central Bankers to print, that money never gets to the people who need it; or if they do, it's due to AGGRESSIVE Overprinting.  You are printing for your speculator buddies at JPM AND for the welfare state that speculation created.  You can't do both, not in a globalized economy, even if the dollar is ultimately protected by our military awesomeness.

If you had a Congress that could print, and a Universal Health Care system (not a mandate), only then could you possibly have effective health care.  If you had an honest voting system, you can actually hold frauds' feet to the fire who suck off the government tit.  Instead, under our fascist system, the parasites (the corporations) have only GROWN.  You can, at least, protest a government.  But not a corporation, which our government has become......

And that also hinges the fact we also have to root out the corruption in our system.  It's not that libertarians don't trust government; its that we don't trust PEOPLE.  History proves that, unfortuately, people can't learn from mistakes, and will succumb to temptation. 

 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:01 | 2588557 Eugend66
Eugend66's picture

Sir, +1 !!

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:02 | 2588560 ltsgt1
ltsgt1's picture

Small government is the answer. The smaller they are, the less they can take.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:20 | 2588640 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

The easier it can be taken over. The less able it is to act as a balance between private economic interests and the public in general. The less it's able to apply policies which are designed towards the well being of people even though they don't make "market" sense (not every problem has a market solution).

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:51 | 2588850 Saro
Saro's picture

The government gets taken over either way, but the less power it has, the less incentive there is to take it over in the first place, and the less damage it can do when it is. And don't talk about "balancing" private economic interests and public welfare when big government is all about funelling money directly into private economic interests.

Give the people in charge a gun, and they'll use it on you.  The answer isn't to give them bigger and bigger guns.

 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:24 | 2589002 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

The logic of incentives, just like when there shouldn't have been incentives for fraud with derivatives...You saw how that worked.

The issue here is that without a state as an arbiter, the powerful rule at whim (remember feudal times before the birth of the Nation State). While nowadays you may say the same, at least there is/was a legal framework, checks and balances, etc...

And my belief is that the state being taken over nowadays is the populations fault. For too long they'd been asleep, away from the public thing, away from politics. More and more stuck within themselves. With such lack of participation, you can't expect anything but the sate being taken over by economic interests.

Other more politically active populations of the world managed to somehow put a brake on such interests from taking over the state. The US is not an example of how things work worldwide.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:36 | 2589050 Saro
Saro's picture

"The issue here is that without a state as an arbiter, the powerful rule at whim"

It's a good thing that the powerful don't rule at their whim here in the US, the biggest government to ever exist.  Otherwise, it might undercut your argument somewhat.

But maybe if we just make it a little bigger, it'll all work out okay. This time will be different!

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:57 | 2589367 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

Well, no matter how good check and balances you make, if THE POPULATION IS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL, then it'd be small or big govt, it will always be taken over.

And check around instances of minimal or no government. Somalia is an example.

How can you avoid corporations forcing their will on the public then if not with the state as a referee?

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 15:33 | 2589915 Saro
Saro's picture

When you bring up Somalia as an example of anarchy, you lose right off the bat.  Somalia was a shit hole and then their government collapsed. And corporations cant force me to do jack; even if they hired armed thugs to try and make me I can always shoot back. Try shooting back at the state sometime and see where that gets you.

If nothing else, the government gives corporations moral legitimacy in the eyes of the public.  Anyone can see that theft and murder are wrong, but pin a badge on the thief or killer and suddenly he's beyond reproach.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 17:37 | 2590250 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

"Somalia was a shit hole and then their government collapsed."

And I guess it got better, right?

"And corporations cant force me to do jack; even if they hired armed thugs to try and make me I can always shoot back."

Typical american infantile response: gunna shoot you bang bang. They force you crap money, they force you crap food, they force you crap ideology, they force you crap science. They skim you, pollute your water, air, food. Destroy everything around you while they keep accumulating what should have been your wealth. Oh, yeah, they don't come with thugs and guns. They do it the smart way.

Corporations aren't evil per se. They become "evil" when they're big enough to do whatever they want. If you had started with a minimal state and corporations, they wouldn't have had to grow so big to control it all.

You can't play a game without a referee with enough authority to impose the rules on ALL players.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 21:51 | 2590739 Saro
Saro's picture

First, Somalia is doing better now than they were under their government.  Look it up.

Second, they can't force me to accept crap money.  The government can (and does). They can't force me to buy and eat crap food (the government tries their hardest though; just look at the food pyramid and the lobbying influence of corn, sugar, and wheat industries sometime).  And I'll put market science against government bought-and-paid-for-by-a-lobbyist "science" anyday (Market science has to be useful and its money spent wisely.  There is no such restriction on the government).

Third, corporations only get big enough to "do whatever they want" when they can use the government to force out competition.  Show me a monopoly, and I'll show you the state-backed force that put it into power.  

Fourth, our government is big enough now to "impose rules on all the players".  So tell me, how is that working out for you?  Are they using that power in your best interest or the best interests of the corporations?  It's a rhetorical question.  

Keep thinking that things will get better if we can just put the Right People (tm) in charge.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 11:27 | 2592015 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

"First, Somalia is doing better now than they were under their government."

That's why they weren't able to defend their coasts from companies dumping toxic shit, destroying their fisheries, fostering pirates. That's also why every now and then they're getting invaded by neighbours who actually have a more or less working state. As Tainter said in Collapse of Complex Societies, nowadays collapse of a political entity is not truly collapse because they're absorbed by those surrounding. And that's what's happening.

"Second, they can't force me to accept crap money.  The government can (and does)."

Federal Reserve is not a government agency.

"They can't force me to buy and eat crap food"

Oh yes they do. They make it so that you don't have much choice but to eat shit. Most people are struggling hard to go by, they don't have time to cook, many live in places where you can't get fresh stuff. And while they don't force feed you, they don't leave you much choice.

"And I'll put market science against government bought-and-paid-for-by-a-lobbyist "science" anyday"

Market science... that sounds like religious science (it can be rigged and can be spent unwisely as well, as if markets were perfect, don't make me laugh)... Also, extremist ideas, such as PRIVATE > PUBLIC in ALL CASES, isn't any different from crazy islamists or what you call Green Terrorists. It's just fanaticism. Not every problem has a market solution. If it had, everything would be monetized. But I guess you don't monetize everything in your relations with people. Or do you?

"Third, corporations only get big enough to "do whatever they want" when they can use the government to force out competition."

The smaller the govt, the easier to use.

"Fourth, our government is big enough now to "impose rules on all the players".  So tell me, how is that working out for you?"

On all players? How many bankers are in jail?

It's not about the right people in charge. It's about citizen participation and institution strenghtening, so that it's not dependant on personalities and has the wider input possible.

Sun, 07/08/2012 - 01:46 | 2595914 Saro
Saro's picture

"Federal Reserve is not a government agency."

Look up "legal tender laws" and get a clue.

"The smaller the govt, the easier to use."

Yes, a government with no power over industry will definitely be taken over to the advantage of industry.  Do you even read what you type?

"On all players? How many bankers are in jail?"

They are big enough to impose the rules on all players.  The fact that they don't is the flaw in your argument, not mine.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 03:42 | 2591056 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

US citizen middle class rule in the US. Upper class are now serving the will of the US citizen middle class. And they take their due the same way as the middle class used to when the middle class served kings.

Fri, 07/06/2012 - 12:49 | 2592343 akak
akak's picture

Chinese citizenism roadside-shitting ass rule in Middle Kingdom.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:02 | 2588913 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

the answer?

Men of Honor drawn to Power...

oxymoronic

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:41 | 2589080 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

We've got a federal government that alone spends  over 25% of GDP and has all the drawbacks you claim for small government.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:04 | 2588926 Lebensphilosoph
Lebensphilosoph's picture

Small governments end big.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:03 | 2588563 johnnymustardseed
johnnymustardseed's picture

“Don’t you want to help the poor”, they say.

Certainly. I want to help them by saving them from the disaster that socialism will inevitably lead to.

Capitalism is already a disaster for the POOR!  90% of what is posted on this blog is about the failure of capitalism. The bias against Obama in this blog is laughable considering the choice in the next election gives us a guy who hides millions offshore for what?? So he dosen't have to pay taxes that every poor person pays. Fucking unbelievable!

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:12 | 2588601 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

The failure of capitalism is because the current command and control economy has the basic unit of money being dictated by a central authority.  This has and always has failed in every society.  Capitalism would have allowed for the failures to fail.  Instead, what we have is a system of financial intermediaries that lost, but are somehow still at the wheel of the entire economy. 

In all honesty, this site has been very diligent in posting and pointing out that our current and past system are nothing more than a farce and the both sides of the aisle are responsible for keeping the poor down and increasing the population of the poor. 

Debt money systems are a bitch and the choice we are "presented" with are simply  there as a divisive measure to get the population arguing on side issues of little relevance, while the looting continues at the core.

Your statement is a failure and proved to me that your two plus years on this site have not been well spent by you.

 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:21 | 2588650 crawldaddy
crawldaddy's picture

you live up to your name. You are one of those geniuses who think the new deal has failed, facts be damned.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:29 | 2588694 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

How much of the originally promised new deal has remained?  How many times has the retirement age been pushed up beyond what was originally promised?  How solvent is the system to sustain the promises of the New Deal anyhow? 

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 11:11 | 2588955 Lebensphilosoph
Lebensphilosoph's picture

The failure of capitalism is because the current command and control economy has the basic unit of money being dictated by a central authority.

Yes. But what you and all your Libertarian friends are refusing to understand is this as an inevitable consequence of 'capitalism'.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:31 | 2588709 Kayman
Kayman's picture

"The bias against Obama"

In case you missed it, the plurality seems to favor neither candidate. Both are painted puppets in a comedy/tragedy.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 12:32 | 2589158 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

No, it's not capitalism that has failed, it is creditism, the ability for the average guy to borrow to have the things and the opportunities once exclusively enjoyed by the rich, wherein he gets screwed over by the terms of the debt, and eventually dumps his debts into the lap of the government who causes money to be printed to service debt. The massive expansion of credit to all classes in the 20th Century was also a kind of socialism.

We think too much of how much money we make and not enough about what that money can buy. If houses were still $5000, gas still 10 cents per gallon and monthly income $200, which it would all be if the Fed followed its mandate for stable prices, there would be no outsorcing of labor to other nations for cheaper rates, and we'd still be living well. The US would be wealthier simply from having plentiful resources, mechanized extraction, and mechanised/streamlined production.

For example, the third world house, including material extraction and processing, might take 10,000 man hours while the American home might take 4000 hours due to better tools and labor-friendly materials such as PVC and plywood, drywall and asphaltic shingles. The other 6000 man hours could then go into making other things, significantly increasing wealth and living standards. And an American farmer and a third-world counterpart might both harvest $1000 worth of grain, but with modern farming methods the American might clear $150 while the third-world counterpart only clears $100, so has more money to spend in an economy where things cost less due to increased efficiencies.

Printing money that is unbacked by production in order to pull demand forward, to paper over financial sector losses, to pay for people to not work, and to give people losing jobs from increased efficiency of the private sector employment as public servants has caused a persistent inflation that has rendered all cost savings from strides in mechanization and efficiency quickly obsolete. The result is that an American working as efficiently as possible, leveraging tools and technology for maximum production, can't compete price-wise with a Foxconn employee who can only make 1.25 I-phones per day. The third world can simply throw labor at a problem and beat our technological and mechanised edge all day, at current labor rates. We need massive deflation if we're ever going to have full employment in the US. And that will require massive debt default. Because until we produce true wealth excess (capital) then we won't have real capitalism.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:04 | 2588565 crawldaddy
crawldaddy's picture

WHAT A LOAD of shit. There is PLENTY of money, tax the fucking top .1%. Thats is where all the money has gone. What part of the greatest wage disparity ever in this country dont you get? What part of 400 people, yes 400 freakin people have more money than 50% of the US combined, that's more than 150 million people.

 

You are either ignorant or disengenious, take you pick, you certainly arent correct.

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:21 | 2588646 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

Epic truth. But in ZH whenever the rich and powerful have to pay it's called socialism, evil, communism, terrorism, etc...

Thu, 07/05/2012 - 10:49 | 2588832 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

Bunk...the top 10% of income earners already pay 39% of the income taxes paid...The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all income taxes....People like Mittens shelter money overseas because it is legal to do so....John Kerry parks his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid paying luxury taxes in Massachusetts.....TPTB have written a tax code that has many many holes in it....

Taking more money from productive people to pay for unproductive people is theft, and it is evil.

 

Limit the size of Gov't, cut it in half and let the rich give to charity instead of some all-powerful central idiocracy.

 

Follow the Constitution and return these power grabs of the Federal Gov't back to the States and the people....Problem solved.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!