Welcome To 1984: Big Brother Google Now Watching Your Every Political Move

Authored by Robert Bridge via RT.com,

Google has taken the unprecedented step of burying material, mostly from websites on the political right, that it has deemed to be inappropriate. The problem, however, is that the world's largest search engine is a left-leaning company with an ax to grind.

Let's face it, deep down in our heart of hearts we knew the honeymoon wouldn't last forever. Our willingness to place eternal faith in an earth-straddling company that oversees the largest collection of information ever assembled was doomed to end in a bitter divorce from the start. After all, each corporation, just like humans, has their own political proclivities, and Google is certainly no exception. But we aren't talking about your average car company here.

The first sign Google would eventually become more of a political liability than a public utility was revealed in 2005 when CEO Eric Schmidt (who is now executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc, Google's parent company) sat down with interviewer Charlie Rose, who asked Schmidt to explain "where the future of search is going."

Schmidt's response should have triggered alarm bells across the free world.

"Well, when you use Google, do you get more than one answer," Schmidt asked rhetorically, before answering deceptively.


"Of course you do. Well, that's a bug. We have more bugs per second in the world. We should be able to give you the right answer just once... and we should never be wrong."


Think about that for a moment. Schmidt believes, counter-intuitively, that getting multiple possible choices for any one Google query is not the desirable prospect it should be (aren't consumers always in search of more variety?), but rather a "bug" that should be duly squashed underfoot. Silly mortal, you should not expect more than one answer for every question because the almighty Google, our modern-day Oz, "should never be wrong!" This is the epitome of corporate hubris. And it doesn't require much imagination to see that such a master plan will only lead to a colossal whitewashing of the historic record.

For example, if a Google user performs a search request for - oh, I don't know - 'what caused the Iraq War 2003,' he or she would be given, according to Schmidt's algorithmic wet dream, exactly one canned answer. Any guesses on what that answer would be? I think it's safe to say the only acceptable answer would be the state-sanctioned conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction, an oft-repeated claim we now know to be patently false. The list of other such complicated events that also demand more than one answer - from the Kennedy assassination to the Gulf of Tonkin incident - could be continued for many pages.

Schmidt's grandiose vision, where there is just "one answer to every question," sounds like a chapter borrowed from Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where omnipresent Big Brother had an ironclad grip on history, news, information, everything. In such a intensely controlled, nightmarish world, individuals - as well as entire historical events - can be 'disappeared' down the memory hole without a trace. Though we've not quite reached that bad land yet, we're plodding along in that direction.

That much became disturbingly clear ever since Donald Trump routed Hillary Clinton for the presidency. This surprise event became the bugle call for Google to wage war on 'fake news' outlets, predominantly on the political right.

'Like being gay in the 1950s'

Just before Americans headed to the polls in last year's presidential election, WikiLeaks delivered a well-timed steaming dump, revealing that Eric Schmidt had been working with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as early as April 2014. This news came courtesy of a leaked email from John Podesta, former chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, who wrote:

"I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he's ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn't pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn't seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going..."


The implications of the CEO of the world's most powerful company playing favorites in a presidential race are obvious, and make the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s resemble a rigged game of bingo at the local senior citizens center by comparison. Yet the dumbed-down world of American politics, which only seems to get excited when Republicans goof up, continued to turn on its wobbly axis as if nothing untold had occurred.

Before continuing our trip down memory lane, let's fast forward a moment for a reality check. Google's romance with the US political left is not a matter of conjecture. In fact, it has just become the subject of a released internal memo penned by one James Damore, a former Google engineer. In the 10-point memo, Damore discussed at length the extreme liberal atmosphere that pervades Google, saying that being a conservative in the Silicon Valley sweat shop was like "being gay in the 1950s."

"We have... this monolithic culture where anyone with a dissenting view can’t even express themselves. Really, it’s like being gay in the 1950s. These conservatives have to stay in the closet and have to mask who they really are. And that’s a huge problem because there’s open discrimination against anyone who comes out of the closet as a conservative."

Beyond the quirky, laid back image of a Google campus, where 'Googlers' enjoy free food and foot massages, lies a "monolithic culture where anyone with a dissenting view can’t even express themselves," says Damore, who was very cynically fired from Google for daring to express a personal opinion. That is strange.

Although Google loudly trumpets its multicultural diversity in terms of its hiring policy, it clearly has a problem dealing with a diversity of opinion. That attitude does not seem to bode well for a search engine company that must remain impartial on all matters - political or otherwise.

Back to the 2016 campaign. Even CNN at the time was admitting that Google was Donald Trump's "biggest enemy."

Indeed, not only was Schmidt apparently moonlighting for the DNC, his leftist company was actively shutting down information on the Republican front runner. At one point when Google users typed in a query for 'presidential candidates,' they got thousands of results for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Missing in action from the search results, however, was, yes, Donald Trump.

When NBC4 reached out to Google about the issue, a spokesperson said a "technical bug" was what caused Trump to disappear into the internet ether. Now, where have we heard the word "bug" before? It is worth wondering if this is what Eric Schmidt had in mind when he expressed his vision of a "one answer" Google search future?

In any case, this brings to the surface another disturbing question that is directly linked to the 'fake news' accusations, which in turn is fueling Google's crackdown on the free flow of news from the political right today.

In the run up to the 2016 presidential election, poll after poll predicted a Clinton landslide victory. Of course, nothing of the sort materialized, as even traditional Democratic strongholds, like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan pulled the lever for Trump. As the Economist reported: "On the eve of America’s presidential election, national surveys gave Hillary Clinton a lead of around four percentage points, which betting markets and statistical models translated into a probability of victory ranging from 70 percent to 99 percent."

The fact that Trump - in direct contradiction to what the polls had been long predicting - ended up winning by such a huge margin, there is a temptation to say the polls themselves were 'fake news,' designed to convince the US voter that a Clinton landslide victory was forthcoming. This could have been a ploy by the pollsters, many of whom are affiliated with left-leaning news corporations, by the way, for keeping opposition voters at home in the belief their vote wouldn't matter. In fact, statisticians were warning of a "systemic mainstream misinformation" in poll data favoring Clinton in the days and weeks before Election day. Yet the Leftist brigade, in cahoots with the Googlers, were busy nurturing their own fervent conspiracy theory that 'fake news' - with some help from the Russians, of course - was the reason for Hillary Clinton's devastating defeat.

Who will guard us against the Google guardians?

Just one month after Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States, purportedly on the back of 'fake news,' Google quietly launched Project Owl, the goal of which was to devise a method to "demote misleading, false and offensive articles online," according to a Bloomberg report. The majority of the crackdown will be carried out by machines. Now here is where we enter the rat's nest. After all, what one news organization, or alternative news site, might consider legitimate news and information, another news group, possibly from the mainstream media, would dismiss as a conspiracy theory. And vice versa.

In other words, what we have here is a battle for the misty mountain top of information, and Google appears to be paving the way for its preferred candidate, which is naturally the mainstream media. In other words, Google has a dog in this fight, but it shouldn't. Here is how they have succeeded in pushing for their crackdown on news and information.


The mainstream media almost immediately began peddling the fake news story as to why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. In fact, it even started before Clinton lost the election after Trump jokingly told a rally: “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing... I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” The Democrats, of course, found no humor in the remark. Indeed, they began pushing the fake news story, with help from the likes of Amazon-owned Washington Post, that it was Russians who hacked the DNC email system and passed along the information to WikiLeaks, who then dumped it at the most inopportune time for the Democrats.

With this masterly sleight of hand, did you notice what happened? We are no longer talking about the whereabouts of Clinton's estimated 33,000 deleted emails, nor are we discussing how the DNC worked behind the scenes to derail Bernie Sanders' chances at being a presidential candidate. Far worse, we are not considering the tragic fate of a young man named Seth Rich, the now-deceased DNC staffer who was gunned down in Washington, DC on July 10, 2016. Some news sites say Rich was preparing to testify against the DNC for "voter fraud," while others say that was contrived nonsense.

According to the mainstream media, in this case, Newsweek, only batshit crazy far-right conspiracy sites could ever believe Seth Rich leaked the Clinton emails.

"In the months since his murder, Rich has become an obsession of the far right, an unwilling martyr to a discredited cause," Newsweek commented. "On social media sites like Reddit and news outlets like World Net Daily, it is all but an article of faith that Rich, who worked for the Democratic National Committee, was the source who gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks, for which he was slain, presumably, by Clinton operatives. If that were to be true—and it very clearly isn’t—the faithful believe it would invalidate any accusations that Donald J. Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia in tilting the election toward him."

Blame Russia

The reality is, we'll probably never know what happened to Mr. Rich, but what we do know is that Russia has become the convenient fall guy for Clinton's emails getting hacked and dumped in the public arena. We also know Google is taking advantage of this conspiracy theory (to this day not a thread of proof has been offered to prove Russia had anything to do with the release of the emails) to severely hinder the work of news sites - most of which sit on the right of the political spectrum.

Last November, just two weeks after Trump's victory, Sundar Pichai, the chief executive of Google, addressed the question of 'fake news' in a BBC interview, and whether it could have swayed the vote in Trump's favor.

"You know, I think fake news as a whole could be an issue [in elections]. From our perspective, there should just be no situation where fake news gets distributed, so we are all for doing better here. So, I don't think we should debate it as much as work hard to make sure we drive news to its more trusted sources, have more fact checking and make our algorithms work better, absolutely," he said.

Did you catch that? Following the tiresome rigmarole, the Google CEO said he doesn't think "we should debate it as much as we work hard to make sure we drive news to its more trusted sources..."

That is a truly incredible comment, buried at the sea floor of the BBC article. How can the head of the largest search engine believe a democracy needn't debate how Google determines what information, and by whom, is allowed into the public realm, thus literally shaping our entire worldview? To ask the question is to answer it...

"Just in the last two days we announced we will remove advertising from anything we identify as fake news," Pichai said.

And how will Google decide who the Internet baddies are? It will rely on "more than 15 additional expert NGOs and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue," to determine what should be flagged and what should not.

Feeling better yet? This brings to mind the quaint Latin phrase, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves? especially since these groups also have their own heavy political axes to grind.

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Pichai and his increasingly Orwellian company already stand accused of censorship, following the outrageous decision to bar former Congressman Ron Paul and his online news program, Liberty Report, from receiving advertising revenue for a number of videos which Paul recently posted.

Dr. Ron Paul would never be confused as a dangerous, far-right loony. Paul is a 12-term ex-congressman and three-time presidential candidate. However, he is popular among his supporters for views that often contradict those of Washington’s political establishment, especially on issues of war and peace. Now if squeaky clean Ron Paul can't get a fair hearing before the Google/YouTube tribunal, what are chances for average commentators?

“We have no violence, no foul language, no political extremism, no hate or intolerance,” Daniel McAdams, co-producer of the Ron Paul Liberty Report, told RT America. “Our program is simply a news analysis discussion from a libertarian and antiwar perspective.”


McAdams added that the YouTube demonetization “creates enormous financial burdens for the program.”

Many other commentators have also been affected by the advert ban, including left-wing online blogger Tim Black and right-wing commentator Paul Joseph Watson. Their videos have registered millions of views.

“Demonetization is a deliberate effort to stamp out independent political commentary – from the left or the right,” Black told the Boston Globe’s Hiawatha Bray.


“It’s not about specific videos... It’s about pushing out the diversity of thought and uplifting major news networks such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.”

In light of this inquisition against free speech and free thought, it is no surprise that more voices are calling for Google, and other massive online media, like Facebook and Amazon, to become nationalized for the public good.

"If we don’t take over today’s platform monopolies, we risk letting them own and control the basic infrastructure of 21st-century society,"  wrote Nick Srnicek, a lecturer in the digital economy at King’s College London.

It's time for Google to take a stroll beyond its isolated Silicon Valley campus and realize there is a whole world of varying political opinion out there that demands a voice. Otherwise, it may find itself on the wrong side of history and time, a notoriously uninviting place known as 1984.


Oh regional Indian Future Jim Sun, 09/10/2017 - 23:12 Permalink

Remember this folks, and it matters more than you may imagine...the ALPHABET is used to cast SPELLS (Spelling) using correct SIN-Tax and the Grimoire (Grammer, but actually a book of spells to command beings from the under/unseen world)....Their first control is language, the rest is all dis-traction...https://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/two-hammer-blows-and-a-rand…

In reply to by Future Jim

BobEore Oh regional Indian Sun, 09/10/2017 - 23:56 Permalink

Hey look!

Here comes those crazy "limited hangout" guys agin... slappin down the evil googlag with nary a mention of the FACT

that the 'business' model pon which it was built is merely kabbalist talmudism in modern day form... a suite of mind control tools sold as a "communication facilitator"...

no different in essence from the "communication tools" John Dee brought back from Prague courtesy rebbe Judah Löw ben Bezalel in order to kick off the "Golem"ization of Europe and the Isles. No mention at at all that Brin & Page were good ol rUSSian immigrants of the usual RED MAFIYA kind that RED RUDY Guiliani imported by the hundred thousands...

that Brins' wife runs a genome service, similar in intent to the vaccines business fellow tribalist Bill Gates and spouse lavish billions upon, or that the dumbing down of the western world into slavish cattle at the command of a chosen few is facilitated in a million different ways by the many billions of $ Merikan taxpayers ship to the pirate HQ in the se Med.

But let's not talk bout that stuff! I say we go after the Kraut guy Schmidt, and his Hindoo sidekick there! Whatca think ORI...? Fix be in?

In reply to by Oh regional Indian

Oh regional Indian BobEore Mon, 09/11/2017 - 00:12 Permalink

Haaaaha, bing bing bing.... I mean bingo bingo bingo on all counts my friend. Interestingly, Sundar is Beautiful in Hindi and Pichai is to squeeze really hard.So The CEO of google is A Beautiful Squeeze.... I'll let you make of that what you will.BTW, in the world of Etherium, there is now a company called Golem.The game, I believe, is out in the open and the time I believe, is NOW!We won't fuck them with their kind of violence, we'll fuck 'em with even more masterful stealth... by deception etc. ;-) eh?

In reply to by BobEore

fx Oh regional Indian Tue, 09/12/2017 - 04:26 Permalink

Fuck the C!A-funded GOOLAG and Schmitt and all the other a$$holes who are prostituting themselves at G00GLE and who probably think that  they are doing a service to mankind. They do not; they are all just useful tools for N$A and C!A. Fuck 'em all.And fuck Trump and Sessions who can't bring Hitlery to justice, but instead feel an urgent need to extend internet surveillance by the intelligence services.Drain the trump.

In reply to by Oh regional Indian

Consuelo Sun, 09/10/2017 - 22:24 Permalink

  Schmidt's 'liberalism' (the term 'liberal' being a HUGE misnomer, but I digress), is as transparent as wet gauze.  Make no mistake about it - he's as Whitebread as whitebread gets and if/when the time comes for the power structure - of which he is a key tool, to power-flush all that 'diversity' and 'equality' Bull-Shit, it will be his hands on the lever...

HRH Feant2 (not verified) Consuelo Sun, 09/10/2017 - 22:49 Permalink

Amazing how hip, slick, and cool the technotronic masterclass has become, isn't it?

We have the right information and peons don't get to decide if our information is correct, accurate, scientific, or relevant.

This reminds me of the priests in Europe. They had absolute control. Only priests read Latin. Only priests read the bible. Only priests could tell you what God said and what God wanted you to do and how God wanted you to live your life.

Those priests were also responsible for burning people at the stake. People like Giordorno Bruno, who was burned alive for the crime of heresy.

Let the technotronic trials begin. Who will be the first to be thrown to the wolves and burned at the technotronic stake for heresy?

In reply to by Consuelo

runnymede HRH Feant2 (not verified) Sun, 09/10/2017 - 23:05 Permalink

Gutenberg, Luther et al. The enlightenment was/is democratization of information and literacy of the plebes. The tighter these info fascists A-holes try to squeeze the handful of sand, the more it will slip through their fingers. They cannot un-ring the bell. Goolag will be increasingly irrelevant as they try to assume the role of gatekeeper. Others will fill the credibility gap Goolag themselves are creating.

In reply to by HRH Feant2 (not verified)

HRH Feant2 (not verified) Sun, 09/10/2017 - 22:37 Permalink

"'Of course you do. Well, that's a bug. We have more bugs per second in the world. We should be able to give you the right answer just once... and we should never be wrong.'"

This isn't like being gay in 1950. This is like a private company running the Stasi in 1980.

This is the boot on your face, America. A lisping faggot that is handing out candy for free. Didn't your mother teach you about men that give away candy for free? Mine did.

bshirley1968 Sun, 09/10/2017 - 22:46 Permalink

Major tribe tool.  Along with YouTube, Facebook, Dell, 23andMe, and Oracle the Tribe owns social media just like the legacy media and entertainment. The philosophy and political direction should be no surprise. 

bshirley1968 Bitpam Sun, 09/10/2017 - 23:18 Permalink

Don't be an idiot.  Block chain will be THE biggest centralizing tool in the history of mankind.How can you not see it?   Just as the Internet has brought enslavement rather than freedom, block chain will bring complete control over ever aspect of life.Wake up and try not being a fool for once in your life.

In reply to by Bitpam

AurorusBorealus Sun, 09/10/2017 - 23:09 Permalink

I think it is ironic that "libertarians" are now being victimized by "Google" acting in its liberty to do whatever it likes with its products.  What is the libertarian solution to this problem?  How is the "market" going to solve this little problem?  How the "market" going to solve the problem of any monopoly?  Is the purpose of competition in the market not to determine a victor?  And if there is a victor, is there not a monopoly?  It seems it is not only Google's political position that is exposed as fantasy in this little tit-a-tat?  It seems that the case of Google has exposed the fundamental flaw in libertarian thinking.  After all, a true libertarian should be extolling the virtues of Google for exercising proprietary control over its product, unregulated by any external force.

AurorusBorealus Billy the Poet Sun, 09/10/2017 - 23:37 Permalink

I do not disagree with you, but libertarians always have some excuse for why the "market" is not "pure."  Did the CIA create the Rothschild banking system?  Did it create J.P. Morgan?  Carnegie Steel?  Bell Labs?  Microsoft?  IBM?The point that I am making is that "markets" do not solve every problem.  The idea of an "invisible hand" that will magically correct any problem is metaphysical rubbish, as utopian as any Marxist fantasy.  I do not oppose markets and am certainly no Communist.  What I am suggesting is that "markets" are not a panacea for all that ails society and unfettered "capitalism" will not lead the world into some golden age of prosperity.  There is always someone trying to corner the market, someone trying to use wealth to purchase political power.  Such is the real nature of people, and libertarianism makes no effort to account for real human nature, while presenting itself as some sort of system based exclusively upon "natural law."

In reply to by Billy the Poet

Billy the Poet AurorusBorealus Sun, 09/10/2017 - 23:52 Permalink

I do not disagree with you, but libertarians always have some excuse for why the "market" is not "pure." No system involving people is pure and no libertarian ever said it was. Furthermore, the recognition of a problem is the first step in addressing that problem.A libertarian might say, for example, that people shouldn't hit each other. This assumes that some bad people do hit other people and not that the world is pure and no self restraint or self protection is required.  So in our impure world in which some people do hit other people do you blame those who do the hitting or do you blame those who point out that hitting others is counterproductive?

In reply to by AurorusBorealus

AurorusBorealus Billy the Poet Mon, 09/11/2017 - 02:03 Permalink

Your example of violence is not quite analogous, because the issue in question is a question of what the basis for law should be.  No rational personal questions the morality of resorting to violence, outside the law, to settle disputes.  It is unethical.  Libertarians, however, question the validity of any law that interferes with their dream of a "pure" market economy.  This creates a dispute about what constitutes the "ethical."  Do you see the difference?Ok.  China has a completely different outlook on the world. The Chinese are not libertarian.  They are  Communist and nationalist.  China has absorbed an enormous amount of U.S. industry as a result of U.S. "free trade" policies: policies supported by libertarians.  IBM or Microsoft or Apple should be permitted to move their business wherever they desire.  Markets should be free and open, according to libertarians.  That this exploits labor is irrelevant to libertarians.  What is more, the libertarians have no answer to problems that arise from outsourcing manufacturing to a slave-labor market.The Chinese do not play the game with the same rules as libertarians.  To use your analogy of violence, they disagree with you about what constitutes violence. They view the movement of manufacturing to their nation as their national gain and a national loss to the U.S., which it is, because once these facilities are in their jurisdiction, these facilities are subject to whatever law the Communist Chinese decide to enact: including seizing all U.S. corporate property in China.  Not fair, you say.  Well... life is not fair, and the magical, mystical invisible hand is not going to suddenly make it fair.Oh... but eventually... say the libertarians... the "laws" of supply and demand will ruin the Chinese system, collapse their economy, and so forth.  Fair enough.  That may even prove true.  But the damage that this outsourcing (based on the dream of free markets) has caused to the U.S. economy and the global economy has already been wrought.  Lives have been destroyed: not just in the U.S. but for every family in the world that sells its labor to support itself.  Industry of all types has relocated and people have been put out of work around the world trying to compete with Chinese slave-labor.  Don't worry, you say... some day, once we have achieved a truly free and pure global market and everyone thinks exactly like we do, everything will work out... maybe for the great grandchildren of all those whose lives have been destroyed by capitalists seeking slave labor.  Once.. the whole world thinks exactly like we do... does that sound familar?  How are you going to force nations to stop being nationalistic?  How will you force everyone to be self-interested and not patriotic or in any way altruistic?  How will you prevent monopolies like Google from developing once the market has allowed for competition to determine a victor?  Just as Marx had not answer for how his "dictatorship of the proletariat" would ever work in practice, libertarians have no answer as to how they are going to force the entire world to be greedy and self-interested only without being interested in forming monopolies or as interested in national goals rather than individual goals.  Libertarianism is the flip-side of the coin to Communism.  Both are rigid ideological and theoretical systems that do not function in the real world.  Dogmaticism has never solved any problems.  Problems are solved pragmatically.

In reply to by Billy the Poet

Billy the Poet AurorusBorealus Mon, 09/11/2017 - 02:53 Permalink

 No rational personal questions the morality of resorting to violence, outside the law, to settle disputes. I question the supposedly lawful use of violence against individuals who are minding their own business and interacting voluntarily with others. If I don't have a right to hit you and you don't have a right to hit me then how can you claim that you and some other people voted to hit me and that makes it OK?It all comes down to the question, "Does an individual own himself?" If an individual owns himself and is minding his own business then how can it be moral (despite being lawful) to fine, jail or kill him? As Emerson said: 

"Every man's nature is a sufficient advertisement to him of the character of his fellows. My right and my wrong, is their right and their wrong. Whilst I do what is fit for me, and abstain from what is unfit, my neighbor and I shall often agree in our means, and work together for a time to one end. But whenever I find my dominion over myself not sufficient for me, and undertake the direction of him also, I overstep the truth, and come into false relations to him. I may have so much more skill or strength than he, that he cannot express adequately his sense of wrong, but it is a lie, and hurts like a lie both him and me. Love and nature cannot maintain the assumption: it must be executed by a practical lie, namely, by force. This undertaking for another, is the blunder which stands in colossal ugliness in the governments of the world." http://archive.vcu.edu/english/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/emerson…

 There are so many things wrong with the assumptions you make that it would take days to try to disbuse you of such folly but let's look at just one item: outsourcing (based on the dream of free markets) The outsourcing of American jobs overseas is a function of the Federal Reserve Note being the world's reserve currency. The Federal Reserve is a banking monopoly created and protected by government. It has nothing to do with free markets. The political and military power of the US backs the Federal Reserve Note and makes it possible to exchange paper (or electronic digits) for real goods thereby undermining domestic manufacture.You mentioned the "invisible hand" above in a context Adam Smith never intended. He used the phrase only once and that was to describe how and why markets favor local trade when possible in a hard money system.  

But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can, both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce maybe of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm

 The market balances described by Smith are undermined by the government sanctioned Federal Reserve and military force which backs it. Domestic industry becomes unnecessary in the eyes of the ruling class because they control the production of paper "wealth." The result is an ongoing draw down in domestic manufacturing which leads to the impoverishment of workers and small businesses.This is yet another example of how government uses force against individuals in order to secure power for the status quo and to fetter the free interchange of goods, services and ideas that have historically allowed innovative individuals to improve their station while bringing material improvement to others.

In reply to by AurorusBorealus

Posa AurorusBorealus Sun, 09/10/2017 - 23:38 Permalink

Thank you. You've exposed the Libertarian fraud, which is why David Rockefeller and his ilk pulled von Hayek and von Measels out of the gutter and set them up in business... It's simple: Rockefeller ran a rent seeking global cartel; and now Schmidt runs a rent seeking global info cartel as does Gates.. the monopolists have conquered the "market" so that there is no market left in any competitive meanigful way... only government can regulate monopolies... which is why the monopolists hire the anti-Government Libertarian fanatics... (as well as take over government regulatory bodies with their own paid stooges) ... to make sure the governent stays out of their cartels.

In reply to by AurorusBorealus

Billy the Poet Posa Mon, 09/11/2017 - 00:04 Permalink

If government protects the little guy from monopolies then why does the wealth gap grow along with the size of government? If what you say is true then the opposite effect would occur but it doesn't.You're the one who has fallen for the fraud that says people like Bush, Obama, Pelosi and Ryan know how to run your life better than you do.

In reply to by Posa

Posa Billy the Poet Mon, 09/11/2017 - 10:10 Permalink

I didn't say that government protects the people from monopolies... I said that should be the role of the government, but that the Libertarian attack on government hobbles that effort (as designed); and that "regulatory capture" by the monopolists further cripples government efforts. In the past some efforst were more successful (eg Glass Steagall)

In reply to by Billy the Poet

S.N.A.F.U. AurorusBorealus Mon, 09/11/2017 - 04:59 Permalink


I think it is ironic that "libertarians" are now being victimized by "Google" acting in its liberty to do whatever it likes with its products.  What is the libertarian solution to this problem?

What kind of libertarian?  Beware of painting with too broad a brush.Minarchists and anarchists are both considered libertarians.  Whereas anarchists seek the complete elimination of the state, minarchists believe some minimal government is required in order to protect liberty.(Note that when I say 'anarchist' for the rest of this post I'm referring to 'anarcho-capitalist'.  There are even crazier forms of anarchists and they don't even all believe in markets.)

How is the "market" going to solve this little problem?

If you ask an anarchist (like Billy is), don't expect any good answers to that question.  He has none to offer.If you ask a minarchist, they may point out that your question misses the mark.  The issue isn't the market itself, but the set of rules which regulate the market.  It's up to the people (and their tool known as 'government') to create appropriate market regulations.  What constitutes 'appropriate market regulations' is of course a non-trivial topic (and I would argue we don't even have a complete answer for that yet), and one that the anarchist won't really even touch (they just insist it's "free, 100%, no exceptions other than NAP [non-aggression-principle]").  While there is a hard incompatibility between that idea of anarchy and trust-busting (breaking/preventing undesirable monopolies), there is in general no such incompatibility between minarchy and trust-busting.  (For some flavors of minarchy there is an incompatibility, for some there is not.)IMO, libertarianism means an approach which maximizes individual liberty.  The means by which that is accomplished can certainly be debated and refined over time.  But I don't see how allowing a broad monopoly on information is compatible with a maximization of individual liberty, so I don't see how allowing it is compatible with libertarianism.  (Situations such as this then lead to my view that anarchists are not real libertarians, just like those trying to create perpetual motion machines are not real engineers.)

Is the purpose of competition in the market not to determine a victor?

Now you're just trolling or you're ignorant beyond belief.  (That's hyperbole BTW - such ignorance is unfortunately totally believable).  The purpose of competition is of course to allow for viable options to exist in order to bring to bear incentives for both producers and consumers.  Competition amongst producers tends to yield better deals (quantity, quality, price, service, features, etc.) for consumers.  The incentive driving those better deals is the desire to get more profit by attracting more customer business.A monopoly is, by definition, a lack of competition.  In some cases this may be deemed OK or even desirable (e.g. limited monopolies granted for "the public good" - e.g. reasonable copyrights and patents) -- there the monopoly should be narrow so while there's technically a lack of competition for that specific product, there can still be other products that serve the same purpose and which therefore compete against it.  In other cases it's clearly highly undesirable to have monopolies (at least of the unregulated kind) - e.g. you don't want the one and only power company that services your house to be able to cut off your power because they don't like your political views.Note that in the case of google, the one doing the search is not the customer, they are the product.  The customer is the advertiser.  So there is a much more fundamental problem here, one which exists in basically all "information"-as-"product" domains (e.g. the entire MSM).  And more fundamental still is that truth has essentially no value (to the customers - aka the advertisers) in these domains.  Attracting eyeballs while not being "offensive" or controversial has value for advertisers, not the veracity or utility of the content.

In reply to by AurorusBorealus

Billy the Poet S.N.A.F.U. Mon, 09/11/2017 - 09:11 Permalink

How is the "market" going to solve this little problem?

If you ask an anarchist (like Billy is), don't expect any good answers to that question.  He has none to offer. You might not find my answer satisfactory but others will. That is why a marketplace exists in all things including ideas. One size does not fit all because people are unique individuals.

In reply to by S.N.A.F.U.

S.N.A.F.U. Billy the Poet Mon, 09/11/2017 - 16:38 Permalink

Aren't you a special little snowflake.I didn't say I find your answers "personally unsatisfactory", I said they're not good, and I mean that in an objective sense.  Whenever the obvious flaws in anarchy come up you tend to be dismissive, you dodge the central question rather than answering it head on, you ignore reality, and/or you're logically incoherent.For example, you would argue that incentives are a primary influence on human behavior when it comes to production (thus free market capitalism), yet you have also "argued" (using that term rather loosely - more like "asserted") that incentives are not a primary influence on human behavior when it comes to criminal/immoral behavior.  Just as the communists appeal to the existence of mythic people of the right "character" to be productive even when that production is not rewarded, you appeal to the existence of mythical people of the right "character" to act morally when immorality is not punished (and is in fact often rewarded).  When pointed to actual statistical evidence that morality is strongly linked to IQ (even when controlling for things like poverty and race) rather than some mythical "character", you simply dismiss that and every other argument made as "wrongheaded".Don't confuse upvotes with your answers actually being good.  You throw out some bit of red meat a lot of the crowd here likes to hear and they upvote it (e.g. just about anything anti-fed is an instant upvote for some), but when they do that they (like you) either aren't following the argument closely enough to see that your offerings don't actually answer the main challenges posed, or just don't care.AurorusBorealus raises some fairly good points - and your responses pretty much dodge/ignore every one of them.  You once again demonstrate your dismissiveness here as well ("There are so many things wrong with the assumptions you make that it would take days to try to disbuse you of such folly" - while here in reality no amount of your poor excuse for "debate" is likely to separate AurorusBorealus from his common sense so even your dismissiveness is clearly incorrect).  When you don't actually respond to the challenges presented, instead choosing (and I'm not sure it's always a conscious choice for you because I don't know if you're even aware of what you're doing much of the time) to dodge/ignore/dismiss, that's objectively not a "good answer".

In reply to by Billy the Poet