News & Analysis
Is the Elite Destabilizing the World on Purpose?
Problem, Reaction, Solution: "Crisis is an Opportunity" ... In May of 2010, Dominique Strauss-Kahn (left), Managing Director of the IMF, stated that, "crisis is an opportunity," and called for "a new global currency issued by a global central bank, with robust governance and institutional features," and that the "global central bank could also serve as a lender of last resort." However, he stated, "I fear we are still very far from that level of global collaboration." Well, perhaps not so far as it might seem. – Market Oracle
Dominant Social Theme: Capitalism is prone to booms and busts and it is natural, to point fingers when times are bad. Get over it.
Free-Market Analysis: This is a very long and learned article (excerpted above) from a forthcoming book by Andrew Gavin Marshall on Global Government, from Global Research Publishers, Montreal. It was just published online yesterday, interestingly enough on the same day we published our modest analysis of power elite, global plans entitled Why the West Is Losing. The two articles make an interesting point-counterpoint presentation in our view, so we will try to analyze Mr. Marshall's brilliant article (keeping in mind it is part of a longer book) within the context of the Bell's admittedly idiosyncratic perspective.
First a little background. Marshall is apparently a close associate of the courageous academic editor Michel Chossudovsky who runs the alternative-news website Centre for Research on Globalization. Marshall apparently contributed three chapters on the history of Western economics to a recent book Chossudovsky edited. Here is some background on Chossudovsky from Wikipedia:
Michel Chossudovsky is Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He has taught as visiting professor at academic institutions in Western Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia, has acted as economic adviser to governments of developing countries and has worked as a consultant for international organizations including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the African Development Bank, the United Nations African Institute for Economic Development and Planning (AIEDEP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). In 1999, Chossudovsky joined the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research as an adviser. ... The Centre for Research on Globalization is "committed to curbing the tide of globalisation and disarming the New world order."
Chossudovsky and presumably Marshall approach economic "conspiratorial" analysis from a somewhat Leftist perspective. Here is the crux paragraph in the article. It appears about midway, as follows: "Simon Johnson, former Chief Economist at the IMF, wrote an article in May of 2009 explaining that the problem with most third world nations ('emerging market economies') is that the governments are so closely tight-knit with the corporate and banking elite that they form a financial oligarchy, and that this is essentially the same problem in the United States. He wrote that, 'the finance industry has effectively captured our government,' and 'recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform.'"
Now we have some difficulties generally with Simon Johnson and have written about him in the past. You can see a commentary here: The Quiet Coup. Simon Johnson, Marshal and even Chossudovsky certainly recognize the problem the world faces as one of a "financial oligarchy" of corporate and banking elites. But when they are writing of these elites, they are writing in our view of the actual individuals and groups that wish to create a one-world government. We, on the other hand, do not believe that IBM, CitiCorp or even Goldman Sachs are ULTIMATELY behind the problems the world faces. They are actors within the system but not initiators. In fact, just yesterday in defense of our previous article, we presented the following feedback reply on the way the world works:
We believe the West – or should we say Western elites have certain peculiarities. We believe there may exist a certain millennial line of families that trace their roots back to Rome, and beyond, to Babylon. Today, we think of these families as the black nobility: their money is central banking money and there is a wealth of literature on the Internet about them. China built a Great Wall to keep out enemies. Islam put the West to the sword in the name of religion. But only the West seems afflicted with this particular group of families that is aggressively expansionistic and entirely focused on its own perpetuation. It has nothing to do with WASPS and everything to do with the perpetuation of merciless familial culture that waxes and wanes but never truly dies.
From our point of view, the idea that a modern clique of corporatists have come together serendipitously to try to run the world is not necessarily accurate. The intergenerational, familial enterprise that we postulate makes more sense to us. In simplest terms, if one looks through the past 300 years of history (or even through millennia), and certainly the past 100 years, it is easy to find a fairly powerful pattern leading to the world's current problems. There are so many books and so many clues left by this elite that to dismiss it is difficult. History is simply littered with Illuminati codes and absurd coincidences that do more to reveal money power than to conceal it.
Marshall's approach to the current economic disaster would seem (and this is only speculation) to postulate a kind of voracious capitalism that seeks to gorge on the masses and exploit workers around the world. The solution is usually the same (though again, we have not read Marshall's full book) and features additional programs and initiatives that are somehow not tainted by elite interference. This is government, in other words, without mercantilism. It is a fantasy in our view. It cannot exist. If there are governmental levers of power, wealthy elites will always find a way to pull them. The only solution is to starve the beast. Remove the levers of power altogether, or at least as much as possible. We believe in free-markets.
This is also, perhaps, why we come to different conclusions than Marshall does about the success of the power elite's effort to create global government. Where Marshall, or Simon or Chossudovsky may see a modern industrial and corporate plot to ruin the world (in order to run it), we see an ongoing, intergenerational, familial effort to create ever-closer global governance that has been, in the past, anyway, fairly gradualist.
We do not see it in class-warfare terms, necessarily. We do not see it even in terms of capitalist exploitation. We see it as a kind of cultural problem. These families have been pursuing the same goals for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. And for those who say it is impossible, we point to modern royalty and its entrenchment. It is indeed possible to leverage privilege into law and perpetuate wealth through national mandates. The evidence is all around us.
Anyway, those who look at the world through primarily Leftist lenses are very apt to come to the conclusion that evil capitalists are intent on subverting the world. Our perspective is less ideological. We grant that there is a group that wants to "rule the world," but we are not so sure that it will succeed. We see evidence of much clumsiness and arrogance, leading to mistakes. We think in aggregate, they may not have expected the kind of downturn that the West is currently struggling with. The EU itself totters on the brink, and this is an enterprise that the elite has been building for 60 years. How did that happen? We think the powers-that-be may have miscalculated. They may want to destabilize the world, but perhaps they have gone too far too fast.
We are not so sure global government is preordained. Again, Leftist analysis would make the argument that a cabal of industrialist exploiters (including bankers) are almost sure to overwhelm fragile Western democracies. But as we wrote yesterday, our point of view is that the current elite incarnation has been severely troubled by the Internet, which has revealed its machinations and even its long-term plans. More and more people know what's going on and don't like it.
We are not necessarily facing class warfare in our view. The world is in the final throes of a desperate effort on the part of a few families (and religious and industrial groups clustered around them) to use certain globalist mechanisms developed in the past half-century to install an ever-more binding New World Order – one that will expand their control, wealth and power. But it is a primarily Western initiative and this of itself seems to doom it to failure in that other parts of the world simply will not cooperate (the BRICs, for instance) and the Western familial elite, having over-reached, does not have the wherewithal to force the issue anymore.
Anyway, for readers who are interested in sorting through social and power-paradigms, we have tried in this modest article to spell out how one can reach similar conclusions with entirely different world-views. It is important in the sense that one's fundamental understanding of the way the world works can give rise over time to entirely divergent results as regards one's wealth and ultimately the safety of one's investments.
Conclusion: We do not see the world in Marxist terms and we do not perceive class warfare between corporations, banks and the rest of us. We think money power resides several layers deeper. Additionally, we think the Western power elite has underestimated the impact of the Internet and the communication's revolution it has spawned. Their ambition, in other words, may have exceeded their grasp. In the other article in today's issue, we examine invading Pakistan and whether Western elites care if they win or lose in Afghanistan so long as blood is shed and treasure spent. Again, the Leftist view of such a Long War is considerably different than our own.
Posted by Dan Noel on 12/16/10 08:46 PM
"Similar conclusions with entirely different world-views:" thank you. One primordial lesson from the grand conspiracies"known, suspected and unknown alike"that have been inflicted on "us the people of the world" is that "we" better realize that many of our differences"based on language, religion, geography, wealth, education, etc."are largely artificial and that "we" have a vested interest in finding some unity in spite of them.
Whether a world government is good or bad is an irrelevant question. World governance is vital to support matters as important as war prevention and as trivial as internet communication. The only question is how to modify it so it provides a public service.
The probable existence of some secret oligarchy that would be responsible for grand conspiracies like the persisting censorship of the 9/11 false flag's sloppy cover-up has been demonstrated:
Click to view link
A probable characteristic of these oligarchs would be essential psychopathy, a genetically inherited pathology that absolutely deprives an individual of empathy, rendering him absolutely egoistic, egotistic and egocentric.
There is evidence that essential psychopaths have constituted totalitarian governments in the past, most notable the former Soviet government. It is possible that some current official inflammatory rhetoric exhorting the western public to support the ongoing wars is partly designed to attract essential psychopaths towards public service. These essentially psychopathic oligarchs could be trying to build a global pathocracy, i.e. a world government based on evil.
"We" live in interesting times.
Posted by Bert Vere on 12/03/10 01:38 AM
I for one would not like to see the chameleonlike nature and extra ordinary abilities of those who have actually striven for this NWO for so long.....
The ability to sustain setbacks and recover by apearing as the alternative to their own ouster is the essence of these scoundrels....
Perhaps the schedule is upset, but the play is still in motion....
Posted by Jim Roache on 11/14/10 02:17 PM
Media, at times, like most of mankind, are like computer chips " binary " y/n; in/out; good/evil; rich/poor; us/them; and so on. If one grants that there is an intergenerational familial elite and that it can compromise governments, why can't it compromise banks and global corporations (Note: corporatists are not capitalists).
These elites have indeed been around a long time " for better or worse " usually the latter. They were, at first befuddled by the Internet, but they recovered, and now "have a hand in" " disinformation, monitoring, archiving, invading privacy, even inserting garbage from mainstream networks. Any impact by the Internet has been blunted and re-directed...so as to distract, deflect and put an end to any interference for the average user.
One must also admit that the great unwashed (they call us "useless eaters") has hardly seized the technical opportunity for power or equality with any great degree of competency. To the degree that the Internet reflects the modern westerner, it indicates that the elites may be correct in their less-than-positive (read contemptuous) assessments of us and our worth.
A great majority of people online are incredibly under-educated and uninformed " worse " they are proud of it. The elite, looking at this, must take great comfort.
I have long considered them, however harmful at times, to be ultimately failures " that comes from the historic record as much as the Internet " which merely confirms it. But the saddening reality that the less wealthy and powerful are worse is disheartening. My biggest disappointment is the lack of courage and ethics exhibited " this includes the ease with which we can be condition like Pavlov's dogs to accept anything " even being sexually assaulted to board and over-crowded plane or to been mugged by goons in uniform to protect the elite from peaceful demonstrators. The security staff and goods are us " they should about face and confront their masters. That they don't shows their stupidity and corruptibility, as it illustrates that the elite can remain inbred incompetents, but we are much alike, and certainly no better.
We play many of the same games merely with less money and power " in short, we are equally corrupt and ethnocentric with Freud's fascistic ID hiding just beneath the surface of any human mind " rich/poor; powerful/weak;honourable/corrupt.
The West suffered the Great Depression of 07-08 and a continuing decline thereafter because of an incredible (by historical standards) degree of corruption and ignorance. To see the great free-market banks and corporatists turn socialist (placing losses on the people and stealing profits for themselves " with impunity because they had taken over by economic coup d'etat, not simply politicians but the machinery of government including the courts, regulators and public agencies " and the be forced to resort to centralist control, including a managed economy, is to laugh. Their temporary embrace of the "China Model" was equally amusing, again pointed to muddled thinking, unwillingness to ever learn from the past and the surety there were worse times ahead for all because of it).
If it remains to the morons on the Internet to save us from the morons in power, we will not be saved. There is nobody to save us because we now approach the same tipping point that has fallen empire after empire, largely for the same reasons. There is no them'n'us; there is only we, and we are a mess. No empire has ever fallen that did not deserve to do so. The Western (or as they would have it " the American) Empire will be no different that any which came before it. The elites have more dangerous toys, but there are more poor and other ethnic groups, by shear number to be disposed.
A minority will soon crawl out of the rubble blinking in the bright sunlight, looking to their new masters, and the elite who survive will begin to go to work on the new political and social elites in an arising empire. They will use the same strategies " economic viral attack to hollow out the core, and in time repeat the cycle again....the EU experiment has proven one thing, even given the new technologies, there can be no global empire " because humankind has not evolved. I paraphrase, but Joseph Campbell had it right: the field of time is the field of opposites. That condemns us to a certain biological reality, even if manifested in social standing, wealth and power " we exist with "the life cycle curve, and the train of life always starts at the same station (birth) and arrives at the last (death) " no matter what the great "THEY" think or do.
Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 10/31/10 12:31 AM
I said it was an alternative view!
I see DB responded to you on another thread, and DB said it well. My one caution to you is to be careful when considering that some public (state) institutions can be good. Once one gains a monopoly of force in a given jurisdiction, that animal can never be controlled. Who could control it, when force is in the sole hands of the animal?
Beyond that, welcome to the Bell.
Posted by Breck on 10/30/10 10:12 PM
Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 10/29/2010 5:50:08 PM
[snip] For an alternative take on National Parks, Gary North has written on this: [Link to North article]
Sir, I had time to look at Dr. North's view on national parks (and Ken Burns and PBS). Frankly I disagree with him 100%. I don't see the super rich benefitting directly for instituting nat'l. parks. If anything is public its the nat'l. parks! Royale Island is an exception not in the same frame as Grand Canyon.
I still have a horror of letting any guy on the make from setting up his little enterprise at the ususal entry point to the Canyon (as happened). Some public institutions seem to be good, they're not all bad, and its more a knee-jerk reaction.
And while I'm at it...I happen to like PBS. I don't generally watch TV at all, but when I do I much prefer some of the programs on PBS, which have some intelligence assoc. w/ them, whereas watching the major networks is a painful experience of lowest order of intelligence. I also like Ken Burns, esp. his work on Lewis and Clark. The one on the Civil War was pretty good too.
And of course, the one that Dr. North criticizes, that on the National Parks.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Are you are content, then, with your federal government now holding something like 30 percent of all land in the US?
Posted by Alkibiades on 10/30/10 01:24 PM
"We believe there may exist a certain millennial line of families that trace their roots back to Rome, and beyond, to Babylon. Today, we think of these families as the black nobility: their money is central banking money and there is a wealth of literature on the Internet about them."
There is a 6 hours documentary about this called "Ring of Power" by amenstop production.
Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 10/30/10 01:05 AM
Not to turn this dead horse into glue....
My view of Folsom's book is that it is a good revision of the conventional wisdom of the robber barons " the ones we were taught to dislike were those who avoided the political, while the ones we were taught to praise were those who embraced the political...for the most part. All praise to our public education system.
Now, I understand in order to get a more complete picture of the people and the era, Folsom could have developed the centralization of the state that was one of the outcomes of the war as a (the?) major enabling factor in creating the robber barons. But I don't see this as part of his intent.
In fact, had he made the connection of the significantly increased power of the state, it would have further buttressed his point " as those who avoided relying on politics would have had to stand even taller, and against an even more powerful competitor.
As an aside, Rockefeller was one of Folsom's examples of a falsely labeled robber baron.
In any case, for me enough on this subject. Thanks for allowing me to share.
Reply from The Daily Bell
"As an aside, Rockefeller was one of Folsom's examples of a falsely labeled robber baron."
We just have a lot of trouble with this. He was supposedly a Rothschild agent and if you look more closely at his life at times it would seem that he used the state in manifold ways to help his business. Didn't he say competition was a crime? And what he meant by that was that by using all sorts of MERCANTILIST tactics he would ensure that his business interests ran unopposed. He helped engineer all these arcane tax-avoiding trusts and other rules so his family and sons could control its wealth without being financially responsible for it. On and on ...
The book you are citing is a big deal because it so imaginative. But in the end, after a number of years thinking about it (it had a big impact!) we began to believe it was overstated for the reasons we have tried to present.
Posted by Breck on 10/30/10 01:04 AM
Interesting, informative, and some excellent leads I will follow up on. Many thanks. The DB has already given me a place to ask my question (q.v.) where it was really focused upon and answered. Believe it or not I have tried to do the same on other forums in previous years without success. Many thank y'all!
Reply from The Daily Bell
Glad we or our intrepid Bell feedbackers helped.
Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 10/29/10 06:19 PM
@ DB " admittedly it has been some time since I read the book, and yes, as I recall, all examples are from the period post Civil War, which resulted (among other things) in a very much more powerful, centralized state thus facilitating the great advance toward mercantilism.
However my strong recollection is that the book compared various market entrepreneurs with the political entrepreneurs with which they competed. If this is not correct, my apologies.
Not to say each market entrepreneur was a Hank Reardon, however that they avoided using the government for privilege.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Agreed. But we would argue it was a somewhat superficial analysis. It is fine to talk about market forces. But they were market forces unleashed in a country CENTRALIZED BY FORCE. In other words, absent the Civil War, much of the money pools and Wall Street maneuverings would not have occurred or been possible. It was these that benefited the "robber barons."
Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 10/29/10 05:50 PM
Re Robber Barons, DB is spot on " the true Robber Barons were the ones who went after government privilege. For a good read on this, see "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by Burton W. Folsom, Jr. It is a great read, and not terribly long " about 130 pages.
For an alternative take on National Parks, Gary North has written on this:
Click to view link
My view on government and protecting property and natural resources is that empirical evidence is quite clear. Where government is most intrusive (for example, the former Soviet Union), the environment is most abused. I believe there are several reasons for this, but foremost
1) an owner will take better care of property than a property that "everyone" (meaning no one) owns, and
2) The greater the freedom for the population, the greater the prosperity, therefore the more resources available to keep the environment clean.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks. Our perspective was specifically in rebuttal of this book, however. Absent the Civil War, we do not believe there would have been "robber barons." They were an outcome of the centralizing, authoritarian trend of the time, post war. Wall Street's anti-democratic, growing pools of capital may have made them possible. Here is part of review from Click to view link on the book.
Click to view link
"The entrepreneurs studied are Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, James J. Hill, Andrew Mellon, Charles Schwab, and the Scranton family. Most historians argue that these men, and others like them, were Robber Barons. The story, however, is more complicated. The author, Burton Folsom, divides the entrepreneurs into two groups market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. The political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and in railroads the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad were men who used the power of government to succeed. They tried to gain subsidies, or in some way use government to stop competitors."
Posted by Breck on 10/29/10 02:44 PM
@ Bionic Mosquito:
"The market has decided far more complex things than money, banking, reserve requirements, etc."
This statement brought to mind a question I've had stewing in my mind (such as it is) for some time. Because, whilst I am an (almost) complete believer in the 'free market' (see reservations below), and in having government stay out of our lives, and in believing that the sun rises and sets in the simple greatness of a Jefferson or a Paul, I do wonder what happened in the case of John D. Rockefeller and the other robber barons?
I mean, today we libertarians often look backwards to a time in these united States when there was less government, when gold and silver were still money, and the band played Saturday night in the town square.
And yet, this was also the time in which the robber barons were born and prospered. I don't know enough about a libertarian interpretation of American History which would look at the monopolies in that distant time and explain how the free market failed, or rather, IF it failed? (Maybe even then we didn't have one?).
In my own thinking, as I've read and pondered the Austrians, especially Murray Rothbard, and tried to see their predilection for a kind of "anarchy", I have had reservations when I do consider John D. and his bretheren. Or, even more so, when I consider what happened to the Grand Canyon and Yosemite before the government stepped in and ended the practices of the "free market" which was systematically destroying those beautiful places. (And it really was individuals doing that not corporations).
Therefore, even more than worrying about how the Rothbardian laissez-faire capitalism would have preserved us from the monopolists of the late 19th century, I worry about how that same freedom from government would have preserved those beautiful natural areas and by extension the environment as a whole. If left up to the "free market" then wouldn't we have exactly what we have today? That is, as one example, a completely short-sighted, self-serving, over-fishing of the oceans for profit (and all else to the Devil!).
Lastly, keep in mind that I am asking a question and expressing some of my worries. I am not saying that I am against the free market, or the kind of laissez-faire "anarchy" that Rothbard felt was good.
Reply from The Daily Bell
"And yet, this was also the time in which the robber barons were born and prospered. I don't know enough about a libertarian interpretation of American History which would look at the monopolies in that distant time and explain how the free market failed, or rather, IF it failed? (Maybe even then we didn't have one?)."
No, the robber barons emerged post-civil war when the federal government was already turning massively authoritarian and power was concentrating on Wall Street. The robber barons were the first evidence of the out-of-control mercantilism that was spawned by the conclusion of the Civil War, the removal of subsidiarity and the defacto end of any possibility of state secession. In their greed, corruption and general manipulative malfeasance, they were but a harbinger of what was to come and has now occurred.
Posted by Adam on 10/29/10 12:25 PM
Great comment re. the market.
Posted by Adam on 10/29/10 12:19 PM
"If the 'market' decides we must have government..."
Nonsense! Slavery isn't voluntary.
Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 10/29/10 11:28 AM
The market has decided far more complex things than money, banking, reserve requirements, etc.
Ever see how an automobile gets assembled on the factory floor? Ever consider the logistics of passenger airplane schedules when weather or other disruptions cause significant delays at a major hub? Ever think you would see the power of a mainframe computer from the 1960s in the palm of your hand working as a phone, email (what's that?), internet (what's that?), rolodex, calendar, entire music library, camera, etc? Heck, I can't even describe how one sheet of tissue paper follows the other out of a box.
The market decides many things every day, these things far too complex for the brains of any one person (or even 1000 elves) to pre-determine.
I have far more faith in 6 billion people deciding what to do with their own lives and property than I have in a handful of "brains" deciding for the rest. Have you heard of the FED? Smarter people money can't buy. And civil servants all, not at all motivated by selfish greed or anything so ignoble.
Finally, you cannot say "force of law," and somehow purify your lack of ethics. If you advocate "law" to prevent two individuals from transacting in something that causes you or another third party no harm, you are a tyrant. But at least you admit that slave-ownership is fine by you. Congratulations.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Posted by Al Kyder on 10/29/10 11:02 AM
Because the market can not. DB The market has no brain, It can only react. Churning out the mantra does not serve your purpose. Any Zombie can say that over and over again like Goebbels,
The question requires an answer, the answer must come from a brain. If you can not answer this question then how can there be confidence in the market?
If we have FRB banking, then what is the maximum percentage that the market can tolerate?
If there is no answer, than there is no sound economic theory underpinning Hayek and Mises.
Reply from The Daily Bell
You have reversed the issue. How do central planners know how much gold and silver (or currency) to circulate in the economy? The market should decide, not the planners.
Posted by Al Kyder on 10/29/10 08:39 AM
The question still remains, No one has attempted to answer it, If we have FRB banking, then what then what is the maximum percentage that the market can tolerate.
Trying to reframe this, as the good cowboys wear white hats, the bad cowboys wear black hats and the indians never attack before dawn, wont work.
The question stands.
So if markets forces are unable to limit the amount of FRB banking, then the law must. Do I advocate force, Damn right I do. The full force of the law. Just as you would if someone broke into your home or bank account and stole all your money.
Free Banking does not mean "Let the Mammoth Banking conglomerates rome free in the economic landscape" without having to respect the same laws as their customers do.
So what have these Hayekian market forces achieved since they defeated the Keynesian economists in the 1970's ?
Market forces have limits, and knowing what those limits are is what will enable us to have free banking, and not, "Throw the baby out with the bathwater".
To turn Mises and Hayek into some kind of proto-religion like Kim-Il-Jung's North Kprea, or Turkmen Bashi's Turkmenistan or Mao's China, is counter productive.
I am not interested in beliefs, I want to know, I want facts, I want them tested, I dont want some Zombie economic mantra that just gets repeated over and over, and, if it keeps up like this, we'll end up having the Keynesian zombies rising from the grave and wandering the halls of the stock exchanges looking for "Brainzzz" as well.
Reply from The Daily Bell
"The question still remains, No one has attempted to answer it, If we have FRB banking, then what then what is the maximum percentage that the market can tolerate."
Why not let the market decide?
Posted by Leonardo Pisano on 10/29/10 03:40 AM
Eloquent. I am looking forward to your future contributions!
Re All of the discussion seemed to revolve around the "finer points" not the Big Picture. My reading suggested that the Daily Bell is simply maintaining its libertarian credentials when it says, "Let the Market Decide".
The DB is especially attractive to me because they analyze the Main Stream Media for their indoctrinations and help me see the machinations of the Power Elite. Also, most feed-backers help to refine my insights, by critical reactions, added comments, etc.
I contribute with my insights, hopefully to the benefit of others, or receiving back comments on it so I can learn and sharpen my views. Comments are necessarily focused on the topic in the article, but don't worry, you will get the big picture soon enough.
[leonardo.pisano57 AT Click to view link]
Posted by Leonardo Pisano on 10/29/10 03:25 AM
Posted by Al Kyder on 10/28/2010 9:11:05 PM
"The problem here is that they are using this mantra "let the market decide" like some religious chant."
Come on, Al, this mantra is just antidote for the never-ending rhetoric "let government takes care of you" we hear in every MSM, day in, day out.
Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 10/29/10 01:47 AM
A few random replies:
Breck ' welcome. As to your comment: "And there could be no central bank without fractional reserve banking." I think it could (also?) be reversed, as FRB (at least terribly irresponsible FRB) could not exist without a government sanctioned central bank.
Al Kyder " either you (the "use force to tell people what to do" camp) or we ("individuals are entitled to their property without coercion" camp) are making this too complicated, but it seems at this point we are talking past each other. I would have more respect for you in the morning if you would at least admit that you are advocating force in relationships. Then the position of slave-owner and slave would be clarified, and you could admit your ethics to the public. Confession, they say, is good for the soul.
And none of this precludes the idea that a free market would likely settle on a gold (and silver?) standard.
J.D.Beck " agree, but it won't take a majority. A small but active and engaged portion of the population will do. This is why my hope is in education, and not politics. If enough people saying no to the system, the system cannot stand as it was. At least, this is my hope.
But, I believe there will always be a small group finding ways to manipulate the masses. I would just like to be around while they are taking a breather!
Posted by John Danforth on 10/29/10 01:09 AM
If we MUST have government, let it be small and restrained, and let there be nothing but gold and silver coin as legal tender in payment of debt. And no central bank.
I agree, let the market decide. If the 'market' decides we must have government, see point number 1.