The Failure isn't capitalism >>OR<< Harvard isn't working anymore
Beam Me Up Scotty
*The Failure isn't capitalism* the *failure is Harvard Business school*
and Economics and other educations... the people regulating things in
government and the people from Harvard Business school were heavily
weighted in the collapsed BIG businesses and government. Harvard is
teaching too much Socialism to the students it churns out. Look at
Socialist Obama and his plans from Harvard, he says he was seeking out
*the-Marxist-Professors* and sure enough Obama hasn't got a clue about
creating even one job.
*The root of our problems* are the people we have in charge of the
system, NOT the system. The system has worked for over 200 years and no
other Nation was even a close second to the USA.
hal
The root of the problem is greed. You cannot have an economic system
that rewards nothing but greed, and that's what capitalism is. The
root of the problem is people who care about nothing but money.
Michael Coburn
> *The Failure isn't capitalism* the *failure is Harvard Business school*
> and Economics and other educations... the people regulating things in
> government and the people from Harvard Business school were heavily
> weighted in the collapsed BIG businesses and government.
The _FACT_ that the economics profession has been destroyed by mixing it
with finance is absolute. The two are vary different and combining them
(essentially combining big business with big government) is a disaster.
> Harvard is
> teaching too much Socialism to the students it churns out.
Nope. Harvard is a business school that attempts to create economists.
It is an exercise in lies.
> Look at
> Socialist Obama and his plans from Harvard, he says he was seeking out
> *the-Marxist-Professors* and sure enough Obama hasn't got a clue about
> creating even one job.
That is actually the "Marxian Professors" in that they actually have a
clue concerning real economics.
> *The root of our problems* are the people we have in charge of the
> system, NOT the system. The system has worked for over 200 years and no
> other Nation was even a close second to the USA.
This claim is hollow as well as fraudulent. This nation would have split
apart in the 30's had more social insurance not been provided. The
nation was sorely injured by the Vietnam stupidity and the Johnson "WOP".
Yet the actions of Reagan and the Bush boys were the death blow to the
most powerful and successful nation the world had ever seen.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:35:52 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> *The Failure isn't capitalism* the *failure is Harvard Business school*
>> and Economics and other educations... the people regulating things in
>> government and the people from Harvard Business school were heavily
>> weighted in the collapsed BIG businesses and government. Harvard is
>> teaching too much Socialism to the students it churns out. Look at
>> Socialist Obama and his plans from Harvard, he says he was seeking out
>> *the-Marxist-Professors* and sure enough Obama hasn't got a clue about
>> creating even one job.
>>
>> *The root of our problems* are the people we have in charge of the
>> system, NOT the system. The system has worked for over 200 years and no
>> other Nation was even a close second to the USA.
>
> The root of the problem is greed.
The communist are greedy. The Chinese are greedy.... even in Cuba they
have the greedy. At least Capitalism spreads the greed around whereas
the Communism/Socialism concentrates it with the government class.
> You cannot have an economic system
> that rewards nothing but greed, and that's what capitalism is. The
> root of the problem is people who care about nothing but money.
Woop Woop Woop... Kool-ade drinker...... Woop Woop Woop
What makes you think there is a more common catalyst than self
preservation and that means greed. What egalitarian ideal will trump
greed as an incentive that all possess? If you use conscience then
only some have that, if you choose empathy then only some have that, but
with greed, you get 100% of everyone and it's internationally understood
like a smile.
--
Lisa Lisa
dog.com> wrote:
> *The Failure isn't capitalism* the *failure is Harvard Business school*
> and Economics and other educations... the people regulating things in
> government and the people from Harvard Business school were heavily
> weighted in the collapsed BIG businesses and government. Harvard is
> teaching too much Socialism to the students it churns out. Look at
> Socialist Obama and his plans from Harvard, he says he was seeking out
> *the-Marxist-Professors* and sure enough Obama hasn't got a clue about
> creating even one job.
No need to wrack your brains trying to figure out a complex economic
system...just blame Harvard's "socialism."
> *The root of our problems* are the people we have in charge of the
> system, NOT the system. The system has worked for over 200 years and no
> other Nation was even a close second to the USA.
And now those laggards are catching up. So whatcha gonna do about
that, white boy?
Lisa
Jerry Okamura
"hal" wrote in message news:4b1e8189...@news.newsguy.com...
Can you prevent people from being "greedy"? What is the difference between
people who run businesses who are "greedy" and those people who want the
government to take care of their every needs, off the backs of someone else?
Would anyone start a business to lose money or do they start a business to
make money? When you want to make money, then by definition can't we all
say they are all "greedy"? What would happen if no one wanted to start a
business? How would those in government get their money if there were no
"greedy" businesses?
phil scott
entirely correct...imo...regardless all the nit picks that could be
drummed up as we have drifted from the
original intent of the founders.
and thanks for pointing this crucial root cause out...these are the
ones that count, not the mere symptoms
in this case, a collapsing system...but its cause...bogus education
Phil scott
dracc...@gmail.com
Pure Unfettered and unregulated capitalism does not now or ever work.
It is the unregulated capitalists that brought us the series of boom
and busts of economies and it is this that caused all the depressions
over the centuries. It is this reason the economy needs to be
regulated to keep these cycles from harming the over all economy.
Pure Capitalism is as much a myth as the utopian ideal of the Pure
Communist State neither is anymore real than honest politicians except
for AL Franken.
dracc...@gmail.com
> "hal" wrote in messagenews:4b1e8189...@news.newsguy.com...
Prior to the Roosevelt reforms we saw business that would boom and
bust we averaged a depression every 30 years or so and this was not
good for Business. It is when we have deregulated industry and the
Banking industry allowing monopoles to be created that hurt both
business and consumers alike. Regulation is the enemy if it is well
thought out and serves the Greater Good. The Depressions of the past
can be allowed to come back and too Big to Fail is not sustainable
either it requires good regulation and enforcement of the laws and
business and people will thrive as they did for 80 years before we
started to dismantle well thought out guidelines and ethics of good
business. It is the small Business that is the engine that drives the
economy not the mega-corporations. It is small business that create
jobs and provide solid futures for all.
Michael Price
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:35:52 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
>
> >*The Failure isn't capitalism* the *failure is Harvard Business school*
> >and Economics and other educations... the people regulating things in
> >government and the people from Harvard Business school were heavily
> >weighted in the collapsed BIG businesses and government. Harvard is
> >teaching too much Socialism to the students it churns out. Look at
> >Socialist Obama and his plans from Harvard, he says he was seeking out
> >*the-Marxist-Professors* and sure enough Obama hasn't got a clue about
> >creating even one job.
>
> >*The root of our problems* are the people we have in charge of the
> >system, NOT the system. The system has worked for over 200 years and no
> >other Nation was even a close second to the USA.
>
> The root of the problem is greed. You cannot have an economic system
> that rewards nothing but greed, and that's what capitalism is.
Capitalism rewards production of things people want. Greed is
probably more rewarded in socialist systems since they remove the
incentive not to be greedy because nobody pays for their own stuff.
> The root of the problem is people who care about nothing but money.
No the root of the problem is people who care about political power,
they're the ones that control the government and they're the one who
caused the mess.
Topaz
Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
the humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
all
the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
jobs.
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.
We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.
http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
Michael Price
The same thing he wrote 5 years ago. So I responded with the same
stuff I wrote 5 years ago.
> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people.
What does that mean exactly? Capitalism doesn't put a value on
anything, people do. Capitalism is only a method to transmit
information on what people value. It has no values of it's own,
and that's good. If "the system" has values seperate from the values
of the people in it then the their values are inherently degraded
and diminished. That is truely not putting value (special or
otherwise) on people.
> Capitalism is based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that
> made potato chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y
> amount of salt, and Z number of human beings for labor. The human
> beings have no more value than the potatoes or the salt.
They have no more value for the company. They have value for and
to each other and their loved ones. I don't know about you but I
don't
feel that Smith's Crisps not loving me is all that terrible.
> And they consider it good to pay they humans as little as they
> possibly can to increase their profits.
And I consider it good to pay the company as little as possible for
it's chips. If they don't like it they can sell their chips or their
labour to someone else. That is because they and I have values and
are free to pursue them.
> According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
> will work for the least pennies per hour.
No they can compete on that basis but most people compete to be
more valuable to their employer.
> They say everyone must compete with the people in Mexico and China
> to see who will work for the fewest pennies.
And what is the alternative? That the people in Mexico and China
not be allowed to compete with us? What do they eat while they are
forbidden this right?
> If a company makes billions in profit while paying
> its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine.
Capitalism has saved more people from starvation than any other
system.
> At least the sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated.
> If the people die of starvation that is fine too.
And when did that happen in a capitalistic society?
> You can always get more people. If there is not enough work for
> everyone to do then they think people need to die off.
Which never happens. There is always more to do in a capitalist
society because there is always new things to invest in.
> Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
> the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
Well let's see, he traded corn at the lowest price that anyone
could find, helping the poor. He reinvested his money in the business
continually, raising productivity and thus demand for labour, helping
the poor. He gave a job to one who couldn't get one elsewhere,
helping,
who was it again? oh yes, the poor. He didn't waste his money on
frivolous expensive things, which would have diverted capital and
labour
from producing things neccesary and cheap. This makes things
neccesary
and cheap even cheaper. Who buys those things, mostly the poor.
> The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
> people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
> Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
> start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
Well would you invest ten billion dollars, which no certainty of
it's
return for a profit of a 999 million ten years down the line? That's
a return of 0.9567404 annualised.
> What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
> share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
Yes. Because the people holding the power to define "reasonable"
who have control effectively over all industrial capacity.
> Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
> people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
> when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue?
Enough. Throughout history people have used their wealth to pay for
charity, both to boost their ego and because they dislike people being
poor. When the government takes over poverty this declines rapidly.
> If there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
> everything while most people would not pay one thin dime.
Where's you evidence for this? Most people are charitable.
> We have welfare so people all pay their fair share.
No we have welfare so that people all pay a share they do not
see as fair. If they saw it as fair they'd pay it anyway.
> It is part of having civilization.
Defined as killing people with darker skin and flatter noses than
you.
> We have many laws that make things better for people.
> There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
> hours.
And how does that make it better for me? Suppose I want to
work over 40 hours a week and my employer doesn't think it's
worth the higher rate? How is forbidding me to make a trade
a benefit?
> There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
No there aren't.
> Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
> to be as greedy as possible. There are laws that keep people from
> getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Actually prohibition of fraud is one of the central neccesities for
capitalism.
> Capitalism is bad for people.
And Nazism is good?
ZerkonXXXX
> The system has worked for over 200 years and no other Nation was even a
> close second to the USA.
Wrong.
It has not 'worked' for over 200 years. The system, yet to be really
defined, has crashed and boomed and has had to be 'bailed out' numerous
times. This latest is just that "the latest".
Unlike before and because of this 'system', there is a very weak
manufacturing sector (ie real labor = real value) left to 'bail out' Wall
Street. Socialization of debt is now part of the fabric of this system.
By it's very nature, this system can not support success. If everyone
where rich, it would collapse. It needs people to live in poverty for
it's survival and no freedom in a system of indebtedness.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:35:52 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>> The system has worked for over 200 years and no other Nation was even a
>> close second to the USA.
>
> Wrong.
>
> It has not 'worked' for over 200 years. The system, yet to be really
> defined, has crashed and boomed and has had to be 'bailed out' numerous
> times. This latest is just that "the latest".
>
How'd that work out for the USSR? How did China finally feed their
billions?
You Marxist Dipstick.
> Unlike before and because of this 'system', there is a very weak
> manufacturing sector (ie real labor = real value) left to 'bail out' Wall
> Street. Socialization of debt is now part of the fabric of this system.
How does India feed more people than Cuba?
> By it's very nature, this system can not support success. If everyone
> where rich, it would collapse. It needs people to live in poverty for
> it's survival and no freedom in a system of indebtedness.
Socialism guarantees everyone will be wealthy? NO
Socialism guarantees all but government will be poor.
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Dec 9, 9:40 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The same thing he wrote 5 years ago. So I responded with the same
> stuff I wrote 5 years ago.
>
>> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
>> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people.
And the Constitution does put special value on the individual. So it all
comes out in the wash. And *Socialism violates our constitution* that
recognizes *individual rights* .
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Dec 8, 10:35 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> *The Failure isn't capitalism* the *failure is Harvard Business school*
>> and Economics and other educations... the people regulating things in
>> government and the people from Harvard Business school were heavily
>> weighted in the collapsed BIG businesses and government. Harvard is
>> teaching too much Socialism to the students it churns out. Look at
>> Socialist Obama and his plans from Harvard, he says he was seeking out
>> *the-Marxist-Professors* and sure enough Obama hasn't got a clue about
>> creating even one job.
>>
>> *The root of our problems* are the people we have in charge of the
>> system, NOT the system. The system has worked for over 200 years and no
>> other Nation was even a close second to the USA.
>
> Pure Unfettered and unregulated capitalism does not now or ever work.
> It is the unregulated capitalists that brought us the series of boom
> and busts of economies and it is this that caused all the depressions
> over the centuries. It is this reason the economy needs to be
> regulated to keep these cycles from harming the over all economy.
1929 and 2007 looks like your regulating is working..... The Federal
Reserve has everything under control.
> Pure Capitalism is as much a myth as the utopian ideal of the Pure
> Communist State neither is anymore real than honest politicians except
> for AL Franken.
So you are stupid or your name is Franken, and then you are a hopeless
idiot.
--
John Galt
Whenever somebody says "capitalism doesn't work", the first response has
to be "Define "work".
The problem is frequently in the inability of the skeptic to comprehend
that what is volatile can also be beneficial.
JG
>
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Dec 9, 3:41 am, hal wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:35:52 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>
>> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>
>>> *The Failure isn't capitalism* the *failure is Harvard Business school*
>>> and Economics and other educations... the people regulating things in
>>> government and the people from Harvard Business school were heavily
>>> weighted in the collapsed BIG businesses and government. Harvard is
>>> teaching too much Socialism to the students it churns out. Look at
>>> Socialist Obama and his plans from Harvard, he says he was seeking out
>>> *the-Marxist-Professors* and sure enough Obama hasn't got a clue about
>>> creating even one job.
>>> *The root of our problems* are the people we have in charge of the
>>> system, NOT the system. The system has worked for over 200 years and no
>>> other Nation was even a close second to the USA.
>> The root of the problem is greed. You cannot have an economic system
>> that rewards nothing but greed, and that's what capitalism is.
>
> Capitalism rewards production of things people want. Greed is
> probably more rewarded in socialist systems since they remove the
> incentive not to be greedy because nobody pays for their own stuff.
>
Communism/Marxism/Socialism rewards corruption.... Obama looks to be
very corrupt.
>> The root of the problem is people who care about nothing but money.
>
> No the root of the problem is people who care about political power,
> they're the ones that control the government and they're the one who
> caused the mess.
--
Jerry Okamura
<dracc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d4e2ebe-55f9-4c43...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
"If" there were no regulations, then doesn't that mean that businesses would
succeed or fail based on their own merits? What is the purpose of
"regulations"? Instead of more regulations, how about more punishment for
those companies that do not adhere to certain acceptable standards?
Jerry Okamura
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bkvuh5d594vah66lc...@4ax.com...
>
> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
> based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
> chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
> and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
> value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
> the humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
Capitalism puts the highest value on the "people". It does so because it
trusts the "people" to make the right decisions about what they want or
need.
>
> According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
> will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
> compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
> the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
> its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
> sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
> of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
> there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
> need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
> the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
>
The more a business pays for their labor, the more they have to sell their
products for in order to survive. For a bsuiness it really does not matter
how much their labor cost, as long as everyone is in the same boat. Then
all of them would be charging about the same price for the products they
sell. But in the end, it is not the business who pays for that higher labor
cost, it is their customers who pay for that higher labor cost.
By the way if you see this posting, reduce the number of Newsroups you send
it, because some Internet Newsgroup providers will not allow us to send
messages when they go to too many newsgroups.
Jerry Okamura
"ZerkonXXXX" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12...@erkonx.net...
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:35:52 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>> The system has worked for over 200 years and no other Nation was even a
>> close second to the USA.
>
> Wrong.
>
> It has not 'worked' for over 200 years. The system, yet to be really
> defined, has crashed and boomed and has had to be 'bailed out' numerous
> times. This latest is just that "the latest".
>
All systems have boom and busts, but in the end the only thing that counts
is the long term trend.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> "ZerkonXXXX" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.12...@erkonx.net...
>> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:35:52 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>
>>> The system has worked for over 200 years and no other Nation was even a
>>> close second to the USA.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> It has not 'worked' for over 200 years. The system, yet to be really
>> defined, has crashed and boomed and has had to be 'bailed out' numerous
>> times. This latest is just that "the latest".
the Federal reserve and other regulations are making it worse not better.
--
Michael Coburn
Volatile and beneficial are opposed to one another. The return to _real_
capital does not depend on volatility. The return to honest effort and
contribution does not depend upon volatility. Some speculators and
gamblers benefit from volatility; the controllers of money (not capital)
benefit from volatility. The real producers and creators do not benefit.
Nickname unavailable
wrote:
the fairy tale:modern markets, so efficient, so rational, can be
counted on to disperse risk and police themselves. reality:“How
Markets Fail” is three books in one. taking us from Smith’s invisible
hand, Hayek’s description of price signals as a system of
telecommunications, Greenspan’s bubbles
can anyone imagine listening to these idiots in the first place, let
alone turn our country over to them 30 years ago? and by the looks of
things, they are not gone, and still hold the reins of power. they all
belong in the nut house, or jail.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=amEcoo6M2sEU
Bernanke Told to Fess Up, Renounce Flawed Greenspan Doctrine
Review by James Pressley
Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
delivered the wrong speech this week at the Economic Club of
Washington. The correct script appears in “How Markets Fail,” an
admirably lucid account of how “utopian economics” drove us to
disaster.
“In an ideal world, Ben Bernanke would give a speech acknowledging the
Fed’s failures and blunders in which he was complicit, and pledge to
return the Fed to its traditional role,” writes the author, John
Cassidy of the New Yorker.
This is a book about how flawed ideas, and the people who promoted
them, tipped us into the worst financial crisis since the Great
Depression. It’s high time, Cassidy says, for the Fed to repudiate the
Greenspan Doctrine, the former Fed chief’s argument that modern
markets -- so efficient, so rational -- can be counted on to disperse
risk and police themselves. There was no point in trying to prick
asset bubbles, Alan Greenspan argued, because they can’t be detected
until they burst.
The chances of Bernanke giving that speech are as low as the Fed Funds
rate today: effectively zero. If U.S. senators are sincere about
fixing the Fed, they should oblige him to read this book before
confirming his second term.
“How Markets Fail” is three books in one. The first traces the rise of
free-market theory, taking us from Adam Smith’s invisible hand (and
highly visible nose) through Friedrich Hayek’s description of price
signals as a “system of telecommunications” and on to Greenspan’s
bubbles.
‘Rational Irrationality’
The second explores what Cassidy calls “reality-based economics.”
Humans don’t really behave like homo economicus, calculating pros and
cons with the speed of a Roadrunner supercomputer. The messiness of
life tends to gum up the elegant models of the efficient market
hypothesis.
We rely on instinct, apply rules of thumb and often run with the herd.
Pursuing our own self-interest, we are hemmed in by mental limitations
and circumstances that force us to act amid partial information,
uncertainty and confusing signals. The result can be resolute yet self-
defeating behavior, which Cassidy terms “rational irrationality.”
Game theorists, for example, have demonstrated that humans can fall
into logical traps. Charles Prince of Citigroup Inc. discovered this
in 2007, when he felt constrained to keep lending amid turmoil in the
U.S. subprime mortgage market.
“As long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance,”
Prince told the Financial Times that July. “We’re still dancing.”
‘Minsky Moment’
The hero of this section is Hyman Minsky, whose Financial Instability
Hypothesis argues that capitalist economies trigger waves of first
credit expansion and asset inflation and then credit contraction and
asset deflation. Stability, in this view, is destabilizing. Mainstream
economists paid scant attention to his argument until the subprime
crisis roiled markets in 2007. That was the “Minsky moment,” when
credit dried up.
In the third section of the book, Cassidy shows how rational
irrationality pumped up the housing bubble and wrecked the financial
system. This is a compelling synthesis that derives most of its
narrative energy from the author’s clarity of thought and exposition.
Cassidy plays down character issues, saying that Wall Street
executives were “neither sociopaths nor idiots nor felons.” They were,
rather, men competing in an environment that “provided them with no
incentive to pull back.” He has far less sympathy for the former Fed
chairman.
‘Libertarian Instincts’
Greenspan’s claim that the market economy was innately stable was “an
absurdity,” Cassidy says. Here was a man of “libertarian,
antigovernment instincts” who for almost two decades headed “an
institution that was designed to save financial capitalism from
itself.” One might have expected Greenspan to call for the abolition
of the Fed and to argue that troubled banks should be allowed to fail.
“This he never did,” Cassidy writes. “Instead, he helped make it
easier for financiers to take on extra leverage and risk while
pursuing a monetary policy that often seemed designed to protect them
from their mistakes.”
All the while, big financial firms enjoyed a safety net that included
deposit insurance, a Fed able to print money and a Congress that could
authorize bailouts.
“In such an environment, pursuing a policy of easy money plus
deregulation doesn’t amount to free market economics,” Cassidy writes.
“It is a form of crony capitalism.”
Is Ben Bernanke ready to give the right speech now?
“How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities” is from Farrar,
Straus and Giroux (390 pages, $28). To buy this book in North America,
click here.
(James Pressley writes for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are
his own.)
To contact the writer on the story: James Pressley in Brussels at
jpre...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: December 9, 2009 19:00 EST
Nickname unavailable
wrote:
and depressions in a free market economy can last for decades, just
look at the long depression from the early 1870-s-1895.
once fdrs new deal kicked in, not one depression. yet, once we peeled
away the layers of the new deal, we lurched ever closer to depression,
1987, 1991, 1995, 1998, 2001, now 2007, and i think this one may not
go away for a long time.
the evidence is clear that regulations, enforced by those whom are
true public servants, not governed by some idiotology, works well.
Nickname unavailable
of course that all is a lie. we the people. and of course i have
repeatedly showed you crank, that the constitution is a
interventionist document.
dracc...@gmail.com
dog.com> wrote:
> ZerkonXXXX wrote:
> > On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:35:52 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
> >> The system has worked for over 200 years and no other Nation was even a
> >> close second to the USA.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > It has not 'worked' for over 200 years. The system, yet to be really
> > defined, has crashed and boomed and has had to be 'bailed out' numerous
> > times. This latest is just that "the latest".
>
> How'd that work out for the USSR? How did China finally feed their
> billions?
Neither were Marxist or Communist anymore than the US is a pure
Capitalist Society. It failed for the reason that it always fails
people are not good at doing anything without regulation and
incentive.
> You Marxist Dipstick.
>
> > Unlike before and because of this 'system', there is a very weak
> > manufacturing sector (ie real labor = real value) left to 'bail out' Wall
> > Street. Socialization of debt is now part of the fabric of this system.
>
> How does India feed more people than Cuba?
>
> > By it's very nature, this system can not support success. If everyone
> > where rich, it would collapse. It needs people to live in poverty for
> > it's survival and no freedom in a system of indebtedness.
>
> Socialism guarantees everyone will be wealthy? NO
>
> Socialism guarantees all but government will be poor.
>
You really have no clue what you are talking about. What we have now
is a system that socializes losses and Capitalies the profits. It is a
system that does not work any better than the Leninst and Maoist
systems did and it is doomed to failure. When corporations are allowed
to keep their profits and take poorly thought out risks with tax
payers and investors money paying the executives bonuses for failure
and success. This will not be sustainable any longer.
dracc...@gmail.com
The Rights of the individual are very much enshrined in the
Constitution mayhaps you should take time to read the document before
writing again.
dracc...@gmail.com
dog.com> wrote:
I see you can not respond to the post with an inkling of intellect as
normal so very said but I expect no more for someone of such limited
intellectual ability.
dracc...@gmail.com
dog.com> wrote:
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 3:41 am, hal wrote:
> >> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:35:52 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> >> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
> >>> *The Failure isn't capitalism* the *failure is Harvard Business school*
> >>> and Economics and other educations... the people regulating things in
> >>> government and the people from Harvard Business school were heavily
> >>> weighted in the collapsed BIG businesses and government. Harvard is
> >>> teaching too much Socialism to the students it churns out. Look at
> >>> Socialist Obama and his plans from Harvard, he says he was seeking out
> >>> *the-Marxist-Professors* and sure enough Obama hasn't got a clue about
> >>> creating even one job.
> >>> *The root of our problems* are the people we have in charge of the
> >>> system, NOT the system. The system has worked for over 200 years and no
> >>> other Nation was even a close second to the USA.
> >> The root of the problem is greed. You cannot have an economic system
> >> that rewards nothing but greed, and that's what capitalism is.
>
> > Capitalism rewards production of things people want. Greed is
> > probably more rewarded in socialist systems since they remove the
> > incentive not to be greedy because nobody pays for their own stuff.
>
> Communism/Marxism/Socialism rewards corruption.... Obama looks to be
> very corrupt.
As does Capitalism look at the latest Bank Failure.
dracc...@gmail.com
> <draccus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The currant system allows us to get what we had with the banking
system where we have companies who are too big to fail. We stopped
regulating them and allowed them to create monopolistic systems that
if they were to fail the economy of the country and the world would go
down with it. With regulation we keep this from happening it does not
allow any company to hold the economy hostage and thus they truly
succeed or fail on their own merits without taking the rest of us down
with them.
dracc...@gmail.com
No dumb ass it is when we stopped regulating because of morons that do
not understand the economy like you that probably think things trickle
down if we give Uberrich a tax cut. Regulation keeps companies from
getting so big that if they fail they take us all with them. You
idiots are socialists you want to socialize your losses and keep all
the profits.
Seon Ferguson
"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
message news:4B1E7258...@Talk-n-dog.com...
>
>
> *The Failure isn't capitalism* the *failure is Harvard Business school*
> and Economics and other educations... the people regulating things in
> government and the people from Harvard Business school were heavily
> weighted in the collapsed BIG businesses and government. Harvard is
> teaching too much Socialism to the students it churns out. Look at
> Socialist Obama and his plans from Harvard, he says he was seeking out
> *the-Marxist-Professors* and sure enough Obama hasn't got a clue about
> creating even one job.
>
> *The root of our problems* are the people we have in charge of the
> system, NOT the system. The system has worked for over 200 years and no
> other Nation was even a close second to the USA.
The same people who are controlling Obama controlled Bush. Watch the Obama
deception and fall of the republic and wake the fuck up already!
Beam Me Up Scotty
We don't have a capitalist banking system.
>
>>>> The root of the problem is people who care about nothing but money.
>>> No the root of the problem is people who care about political power,
>>> they're the ones that control the government and they're the one who
>>> caused the mess.
>> --
>
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
You lowered the standards by bringing *Al Franken* into the discussion.
There is no where but up from that point.
I was forced to respond to your Franken statement, there is only one...
well maybe two responses to that.
1) you are stupid or a crazy tin hatter with a mind link to Franken
2) You are a Franken family member.
Pure capitalism is a minor thing compared to pure insanity. We the
people have Capitalism being used as it is able to be used within the
constitutional limits of the USA.
Since you can't force the people into collectives under our
Constitution. You can't institute Socialism without amending the
Constitution, even though you may think you can simply ignore the
Constitution. The truth is I will refuse any further push to socialism
and I will go to court to stand for my rights. When enough people make
that decision the Constitution will no longer be ignored.
I closed BANK accounts, sold property and changed my entire life to stop
this "push to Socialism" from using me personally and financially to get
more socialism. I'm NOT concerned with "PURE COMMUNISM" I'm working to
end the Socialist creep. The reason we are still in this recession and
headed for a depression is the Obama plans for Socialism and the
millions like me that aren't going to join in with the Socialists to
achieve their Socialist Utopia. You can change the Constitution and
openly show people that you want to take away personal rights and force
people into collectives. If you can do it openly, rather than through
deception and duplicity, and 2,000 pages of lies in a Bill that is
PURELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and I will NEVER adhere to, then I might believe
the people want it. I intend to continue to resist and join with others
in underground resistance to to the Socialist theft of my Rights without
constitutional authority.
Only if you can get America to Socialism "in the open" way, rather than
through silent, sneaky back door subversion, then I could say America
will deserve the system it gets.
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Dec 9, 9:08 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 9:40 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The same thing he wrote 5 years ago. So I responded with the same
>>> stuff I wrote 5 years ago.
>>>> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
>>>> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people.
>> And the Constitution does put special value on the individual. So it all
>> comes out in the wash. And *Socialism violates our constitution* that
>> recognizes our individual rights.
> of course that all is a lie. we the people. and of course i have
Then why have the ability to amend the constitution written into the
document, if all you need do is rewrite the meaning to suit your mood of
the day?
> repeatedly showed you crank, that the constitution is a
> interventionist document.
The Constitution doesn't need to be re-defined at your whim, you need to
amend it via the established constitutional method.
--
Jerry Okamura
<dracc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67af51c8-4590-47fe...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Right of the get go, your premise is wrong. We did not "stop" regulating
them. Banks are the most highly regulated industries in this country. You
may say that they were not regulated enough, but you cannot say they were
not regulated. But the question I asked still stands. What would have
happened had we just let them fail?
Jerry Okamura
"Nickname unavailable" <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in message
news:1851ef38-11a7-4e8c...@9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps, but that is not the case today is it?
Poetic Justice
In communism the Market can totally collapse.
> look at the long depression from the early 1870-s-1895.
Look at Russia.
> once fdrs new deal kicked in, not one depression. yet, once we peeled
> away the layers of the new deal, we lurched ever closer to depression,
> 1987, 1991, 1995, 1998, 2001, now 2007, and i think this one may not
> go away for a long time.
> the evidence is clear that regulations, enforced by those whom are
> true public servants, not governed by some idiotology, works well.
>
> Perhaps, but that is not the case today is it?
--
Poetic Justice
*Corporations should all be treated as foreign Nations*
--
Topaz
>> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
>> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people.
>
Capitalism is supply and demand. It's against having any laws or
programs that might favor people over material.
> Capitalism doesn't put a value on
>anything, people do. Capitalism is only a method to transmit
>information on what people value. It has no values of it's own,
Exactly, it has no values.
>and that's good. If "the system" has values seperate from the values
>of the people in it then the their values are inherently degraded
>and diminished. That is truely not putting value (special or
>otherwise) on people.
>
>> Capitalism is
>> based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
>> chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
>> and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
>> value than the potatoes or the salt.
>
> They have no more value for the company. They have value for and
>to each other and their loved ones. I don't know about you but I
>don't feel that Smith's Crisps not loving me is all that terrible.
Douglas Reed wrote:
"Germans in their country are not less well cared for than the
English in theirs, but better. You are faced with a country immensely
strong in arms and immensely strong in real wealth - not in gold bars
in a vault of the national bank, but industry, agriculture, the thrift
and energy of the work people, the conditions of life they enjoy.
Their engineers and social workers and artists go into the
factories and see what needs to be done. They say that a shower room,
recreation room, a restaurant, a medical clinic, a dental clinic is
needed and these are provided. They have a civic sense, a social
conscience, a feeling of the community of German mankind which you
lack."
About Douglas Reed:
"I have dealt with the once world famous foreign correspondent and
author, Douglas Reed, who went from being widely known and respected
before, during and after the II.nd World War to becoming an expelled
and completely forgotten person.
Why was he "forgotten"?
It was simply because he wrote about "The Jewish Question!"
International Jewry responded to his frank description of the problem
with total censorship, so that his new books could no longer be
printed and the old ones would disappear gradually from the bookstores
and even from the library shelves.
After a short period of slandering he was no longer mentioned at all
in the world's media.
As the author Ivor Benson (who has himself written a book on this
subject: The Zionist Factor) says in the foreword to Douglas Reeds
masterpiece The Controversy of Zion, which had to wait 22 years before
it could be published, "the adversity, which Reed encountered, would
have made a lesser personality give up. But not he"."
Knud Eriksen
>
>> And they consider it good to pay
>> they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
>
> And I consider it good to pay the company as little as possible for
>it's chips. If they don't like it they can sell their chips or their
>labour to someone else. That is because they and I have values and
>are free to pursue them.
It's true that Capitalism is "fair". Consider the guy who invented
the car and all the millions of people who benefit from that who don't
know the first thing mechanics. In America something like 2% of the
people have 95% of the wealth or whatever. I forget the actual
figures. Some of this was dishonest, but much of it was from producing
things, like microsoft software.
People who start businesses and create things are in fact superior
In all fairness there should be the few very rich and the many very
poor and that is what capitalism produces. But here is the point -
what good does it do them to have billions of dollars? What more can
they own or do, than if they merely had millions of dollars? Compare
that to the difference between having enough to afford shelter and
being out in the street. The guy who invented the car did a lot to
make things better for people. Replacing capitalism would also make
things better for people.
Capitalists don't agree that they are greedy. They say a person can
take their job for $5 an hour or they will find someone else to take
the job. It doesn't matter if they are making billions of dollars.
It's all perfectly fair in their minds. And they are totally against
"big government" doing anything to stop them. We can put an end to
their pathetic ideas without having any nonsense ideas like Communism.
Obviously we should have private property. And viewing business
leaders as enemies is also ridiculous. But capitalism is a horrible
idea and should go as extinct as the dinosaurs. In the future we have
should advanced economics designed to make things good for people.
>
>> According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
>> will work for the least pennies per hour.
>
> No they can compete on that basis but most people compete to be
>more valuable to their employer.
>
>> They say everyone must
>> compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
>> the fewest pennies.
>
> And what is the alternative? That the people in Mexico and China
>not be allowed to compete with us? What do they eat while they are
>forbidden this right?
We should not go down to their level. Every nation should do the
best it can for it's people and not have capitalism.
>
>> If a company makes billions in profit while paying
>> its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine.
>
> Capitalism has saved more people from starvation than any other
>system.
At one time it may have allowed most people to survive. But with the
machines we have today that is no longer the case.
>
>> At least the
>> sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
>> of starvation that is fine too.
>
>And when did that happen in a capitalistic society?
Having a minimum wage for one thing is not having capitalism. Not
that a minimum wage is exactly my plan but the point is that the USA
and countries like that are certainly not capitalist, and people do
starve and die in real capitalism.
>
>> You can always get more people. If
>> there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
>> need to die off.
>
> Which never happens. There is always more to do in a capitalist
>society because there is always new things to invest in.
(an interview with William L. Pierce)
WLP: The economy will become worse in that the average White family
will work longer and harder for a smaller reward, for fewer of the
necessities of life, for less security, for a meaner life style than
before. The average standard of living, in other words, will continue
to decline, just as it has in during the past few years. And this is
something which absolutely did not depend on the outcome of the recent
election. Both Clinton and Bush have been supporters of globalizing
the US economy. They both have been boosters of the New World Order,
in other words. They both support the removal of trade barriers with
Mexico, for example, which will accelerate the export of American
industry and American jobs to Mexico, simply because wages are much
lower there. The effect of this, of course, will be gradually to raise
wages in Mexico, while they are pulled down in the United States. But,
then, that's the whole rationale behind the push for globalization,
the push for the New World Order, isn't it? Equalize living standards
around the world. Lift up the poor non-Whites in the Third World and
drag down the rich Whites. Give everyone a fair share of industry and
the wealth which goes with it. Break down national and racial
barriers. Homogenize the world, economically, racially, culturally.
That's the idea which has been pushed inexorably and unceasingly by
the controlled media ever since the Second World War. The controlled
media have made this idea of globalization fashionable; they've made
it a Politically Correct idea, and therefore no one in the controlled
political establishment in this country, whether Democrat or
Republican, dares oppose it.
KAS: So it's this bipartisan push for a global economy which leads you
to predict that the US economy will continue to decline, no matter
which party is in the White House?
WLP: That's one of the reasons, and it's an important reason, but
there are also others. There is the continuing, unchecked flood of
non-White immigration into America, for example. There's the continued
policy of favoritism shown to non-Whites in university admissions, in
the awarding of scholarships, in hiring, and in promotions. And
there's the growing burden of supporting an unproductive and largely
non-White welfare class. All of these reasons for future economic
decline are thoroughly entrenched, they're long-term, and they're
bipartisan reasons. Which is to say that they're Politically Correct,
and so neither the Democrats nor the Republicans dare do anything
about them. Can you imagine either a Democrat or a Republican
proposing that we cut off all non-White immigration into the United
States and try to restore America as a White country? ... There's no
more chance of that than there is of either a Democrat or a Republican
President announcing that the New World Order is a scheme intended to
reduce the White American worker to the same level as the Mexican peon
and the Chinese coolie and that we'll have no part of it. And because
there's simply no chance that the controlled political establishment
in this country, Democrat or Republican, will address or even admit
the existence of the fundamental reasons for the declining living
standard of Americans, I can predict with complete confidence that the
economy will continue to decline, over the long run. There are various
paper-shuffling tricks, of course--fiddling with interest rates,
changing the tax structure, rearranging the Federal budget--which can
make temporary changes in the economy, apparent changes, but they
can't cure this contry's real economic problems.
KAS: That's interesting. But you know, the so-called economic
"experts" that we hear on the controlled media disagree with you
completely. They tell us that this recession is just a little anomaly,
a little readjustment, and that over the long run everything is rosy.
They say that the globalization of our economy is helping America by
allowing us to export more of our products. They say that non-White
immigration is boosting our economy by providing us with needed skills
and eager workers. Here's a recent issue of Business Week; the
headline on the cover says, "The immigrants: how they're helping the
U.S. economy." Are the media experts wrong?
WLP: Yes, they're wrong, and what's worse they know they're wrong.
They're deliberately lying to us, deliberately misleading us, just as
much as the politicians are. It doesn't take a genius to see what's
happened to the economy of this country since the Second World War.
The experts rave about the benefits the new World Order is bringing to
us by allowing us to increase our exports. But the cold, hard reality
is that globalization has brought us an enormous trade deficit. The
fact is that it has wiped out whole industries in this country and
exported them overseas: the consumer electronics industry, for
example, or the machine tool industry. The fact, not the theory, is
that millions of Americans are being forced to switch from high-paying
jobs in manufacturing and basic industry to low-paying service jobs.
The fact is that before the Second World War most American families
needed only one wage earner to keep them comfortable and secure; wives
and mothers could stay at home and take care of their families. Today,
of course, most mothers have to work outside the home. The fact is
that our economy isn't getting better and better; it's actually
getting sicker and sicker.
KAS: You keep referring to the changes which have taken place in the
economy since the Second World War. Why is that? What does the war
have to do with it?
WLP: The Second World War really has everything to do with it. It was,
after all, an ideological war, one could almost say a religious war, a
war between two fundamentally different world views. On one side were
the believers in quality over quantity, the elitists, the believers
that White people, Europeans, are more progressive, are better able to
maintain and advance civilization, and should hold onto their position
of world mastery. On the other side were the believers in quantity
over quality, the egalitarians, the believers in racial and cultural
equality, the people who thought it was wicked for the United States
to remain a White country, wicked for White Britain to have a world
empire, wicked for White Germany to be allowed to smash communism,
wicked to permit nationalism to triumph over internationalism. And the
fact is that the egalitarians won the war. After the Second World War
White Americans could no more justify keeping hordes of hungry,
non-White immigrants out of their country than Englishmen could
justify hanging onto the British Empire. They had cut the moral ground
right out from under themselves.
KAS: Of course, that's not the way it was presented to Americans back
in the 1940s. We were all taught that we went to war to keep America
free, that we were fighting against tyranny, that we were fighting on
the side of decency and justice.
WLP: Nonsense. We were fighting on the side of the folks who marched
the entire leadership stratum of the Polish nation into the woods and
murdered them. And the people who control our news and entertainment
media knew that too. When the German Army discovered those huge pits
full of murdered Polish officers and intellectuals, they called in the
world press to look at the evidence. But the controlled media kept it
quiet, so that we would keep fighting on the side of the murderers.
After the war they blamed it on the Germans. And there was nary a
squawk from the controlled media when we turned the surviving Poles,
and the Hungarians, and the Balts, and all the rest of the Eastern
Europeans over to the same gang of cutthroats who had butchered
Poland's leaders in 1940. Of course, it made sense in a sick sort of
way. After all, murdering a nation's elite is an egalitarian act.
After you kill off the most intelligent, the most able members of a
nation the ones who're left will be more nearly equal.
KAS: And easier to control.
WLP: Yes. But the point is that, the reasons given to the American
people for getting into the war against Germany were all spurious. It
was not a war to keep America free. Americans weren't in the slightest
danger of losing their freedom to the Germans. It was, as I said, an
ideological war. It was a war about what kind of ideas would govern
the world. It was a war about whether we would be proud and White and
strong, or whether we would feel guilty about the fact that Mexican
peons aren't as well off as we are. And we lost the war. That was a
real turning point in the fortunes of our race and our nation. The
loss of the Second World War is the real reason for the decline of the
U.S. economy--and of our social life, our cultural life, and our
spiritual life. Before the war we had a White country, a country
determined to stay White. After the war we no longer had that
determination. Instead we had the vague feeling that it aws wrong of
us to want to stay White. After the war when the controlled media
began pushing for so-called "civil rights" laws and for opening our
borders to the Third World, it was just a continuation of their push
to get us into the war on the side of the people who had made Poalnd a
more "equal" country by slaughtering her leaders at the killing pits
in the Katyn woods. We don't really have time today to trace the whole
process of the breakdown of America after the war, but we can look at
a few examples which more or less tell the story. We've been talking
about the economy, but it's really our whole society which has been
corrupted by the war, by the ideology for which the war was fought.
Think, for example, about what life is becoming for the millions of
White Americans who still live in our cities, especially those cities
with a large minority contingent. We are no longer the masters in our
own land, and we are paying the price for that decline in status.
Crime has soared enormously in our cities and made life a daily
nightmare for millions who cannot move away. Even for those who live
in the suburbs and only must work in the cities during the day, crime
has become an ever-present constraint, a burden, a limit to their
lives. City streets which once were safe for White women and men, by
night as well as by day, are now like minefields where we must proceed
with caution and be always on guard. We know who makes our streets
unsafe. We know against whom we are obliged to bar our windows. We
know whom we must fear if our cars run out of gas or break down at
night. And these are the same people whose welfare support imposes
such an intolerable burden on our strained economy. And it is
interesting that the government cannot solve our crime problem for
exactly the same reason that it cannot solve our economic problem: it
cannot address the causes; it cannot even admit the existence of the
causes, because those causes are Politically Incorrect. Just as the
government economists talk about interest rates and budget adjustments
but dare not speak of the effects of globalism on our economy, the
sociologists talk about "poverty" as the cause of urban crime, but
dare not mention that crime in America today is above all else a
racial problem. Or look at what our schools have become, or look at
popular entertainment. You know what the purpose of a school should
be? It should be not just to pound facts into the heads of children so
they can earn a living; it should be to mold them into good citizens.
It should be to teach them about their roots, about their ancestors,
about their race. It should be to give them a sense of identity, a
feeling of solidarity with their people, a feeling of appreciation for
the civilization which their people created. It should be to teach
them the values and customs which are peculiar to their people. But
most of the schools in America's cities cannot do these things. They
are not even permitted to try to do these things, because these things
are all profoundly racist, the controlled media tell us. The only kind
of school which can teach meaningfully about roots and identity is a
school which is racially homogeneous, but such schools were outlawed
by our government after the Second World War, because they are
contrary to the principles for which that war was fought. When our
kids turn to drugs today, when they learn anti-White rap lyrics from
the television, when they think Magic Johnson is a hero and say upon
meeting a friend, "hey, man, gimme five," we're paying the price of
the war. I said a few minutes ago that the worst aspect of the
breakdown of America was not what's happened to our economy, but
what's happened to our spiritual life, to our morale, to our idealism,
to our character. White Americans haven't become more stupid in the
last 50 years. Most of the people listening to this program understand
exactly what I'm saying. They didn't really need me to point it out to
them. They can see it for themselves. It doesn't take a genius to
understand why our schools aren't working or why the New World Order
will hurt Americans as the price of making Mexicans and Chinese more
prosperous. But it does take just a tiny bit of courage to stand up
and say these things when we've had it drummed into our heads that we
always must be Politically Correct. The people listening to this
program have for years been watching America being torn down. They
have seen the effects of egalitarianism, of liberalism on our society.
They have seen one liberal program after another make things worse and
worse, and they have listened to the controlled media and the
controlled politicians tell them that what's needed to fix things is
more of the same. And they've thought to themselves, this is crazy.
But they've been afraid to say that out loud. They've been afraid to
say, "Hey, look, Joe, the emperor doesn't have any clothes on." And
it's my considered opinion that this timidity, this willingness to go
along with every new insanity imposed on us by the media and the
politicians, even when we know it's unnatural and immoral and
destructive of everything worthwhile--this is a spiritual failure.
This spiritual failure, this willingness to tolerate evil, is a more
serious matter, in my eyes, than our economic decline. When we are
able to heal ourselves spiritually, we'll be able to heal ourselves
economically and socially, but not before.
KAS: Is this spiritual failure entirely the fault of the American
people? You've repeatedly referred to the controlled media as the
principal promoters of the ideology which is at the root of our
problems. Aren't they to blame? Aren't the people who control the
media responsible for what's happening to America? And, by the way,
who are these media controllers?
WLP: Well, I think we all know who wields more control over the news
and entertainment media than any other group. It's the Jews. And, yes,
they deserve a great deal of blame. But not all the blame. Perhaps not
even most of it. After all, they're only acting in accord with their
nature. They're doing what they always do when they come into a
country. We shouldn't have let them do it. We should have stopped them
when they were taking over Hollywood 75 years ago. We should have
stopped them when they began buying up newspapers back before the
Second World War. After the war we shouldn't have let them get
anywhere near a television studio. But we didn't stop them, and the
blame for that really lies with those who have set themselves up as
our political leaders. They sold us out. They sold out America. They
sold out their race. When our kids are exposed to the godawful,
anti-White rap musicals from MTV, should we blame the Jewish owner of
MTV, Mr Redstone, or should we blame the politicians in Washington who
let him get away with it? Personally, I'd go after the politicians
first.
KAS: I see your point. Tell us, Dr Pierce, do you think there's any
hope that White Americans ever will go after the politicians who are
betraying them? Do you think they ever will regain enough spiritual
strength to stand up and say, "Hey, the emperor is naked"?
WLP: I do. I believe that one day they'll be shouting it from the
housetops. More people are angry today about what their government is
doing to America than at any time since the Second World War. As time
passes their numbers and their anger will grow. That is inevitable,
because the policies of the controlled media and the government are
making America an unlivable place. The condition of the economy helps
too. I would really be worried if I thought that the politicians could
patch up the economy enough to lull people back to sleep. But I know
that they can't. I know that conditions can only become worse and
worse under the policies which come from Washington, regardless of
who's in the White House. And this is what gives me hope for the
future. When the pain becomes great enough, anger and frustration will
overcome the fear of being Politically Incorrect, even for the most
timid White American.
>
>> Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
>> the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
>
> Well let's see, he traded corn at the lowest price that anyone
>could find, helping the poor. He reinvested his money in the
>business continually, raising productivity and thus demand for
>labour, helping the poor. He gave a job to one who couldn't
>get one elsewhere, helping, who was it again? oh yes, the
>poor. He didn't waste his money on frivolous expensive things,
>which would have diverted capital and labour from producing
>things neccesary and cheap. This makes things neccesary
>and cheap even cheaper. Who buys those things? Mostly the poor.
Spin, see the movie.
>
>> The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
>> people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
>> Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
>> start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
>
> Well would you invest ten billion dollars, which no certainty of
>it's return for a profit of a 999 million ten years down the line?
>That's a return of 0.9567404% annualised.
For one thing investing should be abolished. Business loans should
be from the government and at zero interest. Banks are parasites:
The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is corrupt and needs to be replaced. The only way money
comes into existence today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.
The United States government borrows money from the Federal
Reserve Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private
stockholders. It is in the business section of the phone book, not the
government section. Other banks also create the money in our money
supply. They are allowed to loan out much more money then they
actually have. Thus they create new money. No one else is allowed to
create money, only bankers have this privilege. All of our money is
debt-money and it is all owed back to bankers, plus the interest.
In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
charge.
The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:
"If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."
The book The Struggle for World Power put it this way:
"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which
was legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and ,
therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not
only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to
borrow the privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the
thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and
deception to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of
nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services
for no return, which is fraud and theft, made worse by the
circumstances that the money is lent out at interest...it follows that
those who have the power to 'create' out of nothing all the money in
each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total
power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and
so on. Therefore the power of Parliament in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"
>
>> What if there were laws that made sure working people got a
>reasonable
>> share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
>
> Yes. Because the people holding the power to define "reasonable"
>who have control effectively over all industrial capacity.
Someone must be reasonable and it is certainly not the capitalists.
>
>> In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far
>> that all the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering
>> food and all automated. You would think everything would be
>> great, but under capitalism the people would starve because
>> there wouldn't be enough jobs.
>
>> Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
>> people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
>> when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue?
>
> Enough. Throughout history people have used their wealth to pay
>for charity, both to boost their ego and because they dislike
>people being poor. When the government takes over poverty this
>declines rapidly.
We should pay our fair share.
>
>> If there was no welfare then the charitable people would
>> have to pay for everything while most people would not pay
>> one thin dime.
>
> Where's you evidence for this? Most people are charitable.
Would you want to pay more than your fair share or less?
>
>> We have welfare so people all pay their fair share.
>
> No we have welfare so that people all pay a share they do not
>see as fair. If they saw it as fair they'd pay it anyway.
>
>> It is part of having civilization.
>
> Defined as killing people with darker skin and flatter noses
>than you.
The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
lie.
By Shaun Walker.
The point is that all we actually seek is White
self-determination in our own territory, like every other race.
How much more reasonable can that be?
No one questions the self-determination Indians have on their
reservations.
No one questions the right to self-determination for the Eskimos
(Inuit) in the far North of Canada. Hell no. The Canadian
government has even passed laws to grant the Eskimos control over
a vast expanse of territory which the non-Whites claimed.
This model exists throughout the world: everywhere you go, you
will find assorted non-White races and groups all successfully
claiming their right to self determination, all with the support
of the liberals and even other non-Whites.
The Palestinians are a case in point. Most politically-prominent
Negroes in America support the Palestinians having a separate
state, and object to the Palestinians being ruled by the Zionist
Jewish state. And rightly so. In this demand, they are joined by
the White extreme left-wing of the political spectrum.
Yet, you will not find one of these White extremist left-wingers
supporting the concept of a territory for White people in which
they can have self-determination. Liberal hypocrisy is as
boundless as time.
If we, or anyone else who supports White self-determination,
raises the issue of White separatism with any of these non-White
groups, or the left-wingers of any race, we are dismissed as
"White supremacists" or "haters" or what-ever word they like to
use at that moment in time.
But honestly, we don't care much about what they call us. We know
what we need, and we work day and night to achieve it. Why should
we be ashamed of being White? On the contrary, we are proud of
our race, the race that has produced every single great
scientific innovation on the planet. Our race has produced all
the greatest works of art, and it is our aesthetic norms that
dominate the entire world�
White nationalists who look at this
fact closely, can quickly become discouraged and come to the
conclusion that White separatist activity is pointless. But they
are forgetting an important message given to us by our founder,
Dr. William Pierce.
He told us, in no uncertain terms, that when we work for our new
society, we should not be discouraged by what we see around us.
We work, Dr. Pierce said, not for what it is now - otherwise we
would be conservatives - but rather we work for what can be.
Dr. Pierce used the analogy of a garden, overrun with weeds. A
gardener, who sees only weeds, might give up without even trying.
A visionary, who sees the blades of grass and roses lying half
submerged in the weeds, and who conceptualizes a grand garden,
free of weeds and sprouting new life, the re-growth of Nature's
glory, is the true carrier of our racial renewal and the rebirth
of our Aryan Folk.
No, we are not conservatives who seek to preserve the existing
order. To hell with the existing order - it is corrupt, decadent,
and must fall. We don't want to preserve the obviously failed,
existing social construct; we wish to see a new society, in which
merit and merit alone determines political leadership, not with
how the current establishment promotes the best liars to the top.
We do not seek to maintain the existing raceless order, or to go
back to the days of segregation. We know and understand fully
that segregation, as well-intentioned as it might have been, was
a recipe for disaster.
We don't seek to rule over anybody but ourselves, and we need
racial separation in our own areas, and not segregation within a
joint area. That is the only solution.
No sir, conservatives we are not. We are revolutionaries in the
true sense of the word: we seek to remodel the world in a new
image, to cast down the lies and racial treason of the old order,
and to return to the eternal laws of race as our guiding light.
Only with the full understanding of race, acceptance of racial
differences and geographic separation, can we avoid racial
conflict.
Yes, you heard me correctly: we seek a world without racial
conflict, where each race is free to achieve whatever it may,
within its own space, without interference from outside.
This goal is really this ironic, to the extreme that the solution
to the racial problem which we seek, is in fact the only manner
in which the racial harmony which the liberals so desperately
desire, can be achieved.
We know and understand this eternal truth. Birds of a feather
flock together, as should you and I.
We have our goal clearly laid out in front of us. We are resolute
in our intention to see the flowering garden of our glorious race
instead of the Jew-ridden, race-mixed weed patch, and we work
unceasingly for our goal.
Why don't you join with us today? Join the National Alliance and
become a part of our racial rebirth.
>
>> We have many laws that make things better for people.
>> There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
>> hours.
>
> And how does that make it better for me? Suppose I want to
>work over 40 hours a week and my employer doesn't think it's
>worth the higher rate? How is forbidding me to make a trade
>a benefit?
People are exploited in capitalism.
>
>> There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
>
> No there aren't.
>
>> Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
>> to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
>> getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
>
> Actually prohibition of fraud is one of the central neccesities for
>capitalism.
>
>> Capitalism is bad for people.
>
> And Nazism is good?
Leon Degrelle
"We have the power. Now our gigantic work begins."
Those were Hitler's words on the night of January 30, 1933, as
cheering crowds surged past him, for five long hours, beneath the
windows of the Chancellery in Berlin.
His political struggle had lasted 14 years. He himself was 43, that
is, physically and intellectually at the peak of his powers. He had
won over millions of Germans and organized them into Germany's largest
and most dynamic political party, a party girded by a human rampart of
hundreds of thousands of storm troopers, three fourths of them members
of the working class. He had been extremely shrewd. All but toying
with his adversaries, Hitler had, one after another, vanquished them
all.
Standing there at the window, his arm raised to the delirious throng,
he must have known a feeling of triumph. But he seemed almost torpid,
absorbed, as if lost in another world.
It was a world far removed from the delirium in the street, a world of
65 million citizens who loved him or hated him, but all of whom, from
that night on, had become his responsibility. And as he knew -- as
almost all Germans knew on January 1933 -- that this was a crushing,
an almost desperate responsibility.
Half a century later, few people understand the crisis Germany faced
at that time. Today, it's easy to assume that Germans have always been
well-fed and even plump. But the Germans Hitler inherited were virtual
skeletons.
During the preceding years, a score of "democratic" governments had
come and gone, often in utter confusion. Instead of alleviating the
people's misery, they had increased it, due to their own instability:
it was impossible for them to pursue any given plan for more than a
year or two. Germany had arrived at a dead end. In just a few years
there had been 224,000 suicides - a horrifying figure, bespeaking a
state of misery even more horrifying.
By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was
virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry
workers roamed aimlessly through the streets, receiving a pitiful
unemployment benefit of less than 42 marks per month. Many of those
out of work had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million
Germans, a third of the country's population, were reduced to trying
to survive on about 40 pfennigs per person per day.
Unemployment benefits, moreover, were limited to a period of six
months. After that came only the meager misery allowance dispensed by
the welfare offices.
Notwithstanding the gross inadequacy of this assistance, by trying to
save the six million unemployed from total destruction, even for just
six months, both the state and local branches of the German government
saw themselves brought to ruin: in 1932 alone such aid had swallowed
up four billion marks, 57 percent of the total tax revenues of the
federal government and the regional states. A good many German
municipalities were bankrupt.
Those still lucky enough to have some kind of job were not much better
off. Workers and employees had taken a cut of 25 percent in their
wages and salaries. Twenty-one percent of them were earning between
100 and 250 marks per month; 69.2 percent of them, in January of 1933,
were being paid less than 1,200 marks annually. No more than about
100,000 Germans, it was estimated, were able to live without financial
worries.
During the three years before Hitler came to power, total earnings had
fallen by more than half, from 23 billion marks to 11 billion. The
average per capita income had dropped from 1,187 marks in 1929 to 627
marks, a scarcely tolerable level, in 1932. By January 1933, when
Hitler took office, 90 percent of the German people were destitute.
No one escaped the strangling effects of the unemployment. The
intellectuals were hit as hard as the working class. Of the 135,000
university graduates, 60 percent were without jobs. Only a tiny
minority was receiving unemployment benefits.
"The others," wrote one foreign observer, Marcel Laloire (in his book
New Germany), "are dependent on their parents or are sleeping in
flophouses. In the daytime they can be seen on the boulevards of
Berlin wearing signs on their backs to the effect that they will
accept any kind of work."
But there was no longer any kind of work.
The same drastic fall-off had hit Germany's cottage industry, which
comprised some four million workers. Its turnover had declined 55
percent, with total sales plunging from 22 billion to 10 billion
marks.
Hardest hit of all were construction workers; 90 percent of them were
unemployed.
Farmers, too, had been ruined, crushed by losses amounting to 12
billion marks. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and their
land. In 1932 just the interest on the loans they had incurred due to
the crash was equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the
agricultural production of the entire country. Those who were no
longer able to meet the interest payments saw their farms auctioned
off in legal proceedings: in the years 1931-1932, 17,157 farms -- with
a combined total area of 462,485 hectares - were liquidated in this
way.
The "democracy" of Germany's "Weimar Republic" (1918 -1933) had proven
utterly ineffective in addressing such flagrant wrongs as this
impoverishment of millions of farm workers, even though they were the
nation's most stable and hardest working citizens. Plundered,
dispossessed, abandoned: small wonder they heeded Hitler's call.
Their situation on January 30, 1933, was tragic. Like the rest of
Germany's working class, they had been betrayed by their political
leaders, reduced to the alternatives of miserable wages, paltry and
uncertain benefit payments, or the outright humiliation of begging.
Germany's industries, once renowned everywhere in the world, were no
longer prosperous, despite the millions of marks in gratuities that
the financial magnates felt obliged to pour into the coffers of the
parties in power before each election in order to secure their
cooperation. For 14 years the well-blinkered conservatives and
Christian democrats of the political center had been feeding at the
trough just as greedily as their adversaries of the left�
One inevitable consequence of this ever-increasing misery and
uncertainty about the future was an abrupt decline in the birthrate.
When your household savings are wiped out, and when you fear even
greater calamities in the days ahead, you do not risk adding to the
number of your dependents.
In those days the birth rate was a reliable barometer of a country's
prosperity. A child is a joy, unless you have nothing but a crust of
bread to put in its little hand. And that's just the way it was with
hundreds of thousands of German families in 1932�
Hitler knew that he would be starting from zero. From less than zero.
But he was also confident of his strength of will to create Germany
anew -- politically, socially, financially, and economically. Now
legally and officially in power, he was sure that he could quickly
convert that cipher into a Germany more powerful than ever before.
What support did he have?
For one thing, he could count on the absolute support of millions of
fanatical disciples. And on that January evening, they joyfully shared
in the great thrill of victory. Some thirteen million Germans, many of
them former Socialists and Communists, had voted for his party.
But millions of Germans were still his adversaries, disconcerted
adversaries, to be sure, whom their own political parties had
betrayed, but who had still not been won over to National Socialism.
The two sides -- those for and those against Hitler -- were very
nearly equal in numbers. But whereas those on the left were divided
among themselves, Hitler's disciples were strongly united. And in one
thing above all, the National Socialists had an incomparable
advantage: in their convictions and in their total faith in a leader.
Their highly organized and well-disciplined party had contented with
the worst kind of obstacles, and had overcome them�
In the eyes of the capitalists, money was the sole active element in
the flourishing of a country's economy. To Hitler's way of thinking,
that conception was radically wrong: capital, on the contrary, was
only an instrument. Work was the essential element: man's endeavor,
man's honor, blood, muscles and soul.
Hitler wanted not just to put an to the class struggle, but to
reestablish the priority of the human being, in justice and respect,
as the principal factor in production�
For the worker's trust in the fatherland to be restored, he had to
feel that from now on he was to be (and to be treated) as an equal,
instead of remaining a social inferior. Under the governments of the
so-called democratic parties of both the left and the right, he had
remained an inferior; for none of them had understood that in the
hierarchy of national values, work is the very essence of life; �
The objective, then, was far greater than merely getting six million
unemployed back to work. It was to achieve a total revolution.
"The people," Hitler declared, "were not put here on earth for the
sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of
capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and
the economy in turn to serve the people."
It would not be enough merely to reopen the thousands of closed
factories and fill them with workers. If the old concepts still ruled,
the workers would once again be nothing more than living machines,
faceless and interchangeable�
Nowhere in twentieth-century Europe had the authority of a head of
state ever been based on such overwhelming and freely given national
consent. Prior to Hitler, from 1919 to 1932, those governments piously
styling themselves democratic had usually come to power by meager
majorities, sometimes as low as 51 or 52 percent.
"I am not a dictator," Hitler had often affirmed, "and I never will
be. Democracy will be rigorously enforced by National Socialism."
Authority does not mean tyranny. A tyrant is someone who puts himself
in power without the will of the people or against the will of the
people. A democrat is placed in power by the people. But democracy is
not limited to a single formula. It may be partisan or parliamentary.
Or it may be authoritarian. The important thing is that the people
have wished it, chosen it, established it in its given form.
That was the case with Hitler. He came to power in an essentially
democratic way. Whether one likes it or not, this fact is undeniable.
And after coming to power, his popular support measurably increased
from year to year. The more intelligent and honest of his enemies have
been obliged to admit this, men such as the declared anti-Nazi
historian and professor Joachim Fest, who wrote:
For Hitler was never interested in establishing a mere tyranny. Sheer
greed for power will not suffice as explanation for his personality
and energy -- He was not born to be a mere tyrant. He was fixated upon
his mission of defending Europe and the Aryan race ... Never had he
felt so dependent upon the masses as he did at this time, and he
watched their reactions with anxious concern.
These lines weren't written by Dr. Goebbels, but by a stern critic of
Hitler and his career�
When it came time to vote, Hitler was granted plenary powers with a
sweeping majority of 441 votes to 94: he had won not just two thirds,
but 82.44 percent of the assembly's votes. This "Enabling Act" granted
Hitler for four years virtually absolute authority over the
legislative as well as the executive affairs of the government�
After 1945 the explanation that was routinely offered for all this was
that the Germans had lost their heads. Whatever the case, it is a
historical fact that they acted of their own free will. Far from being
resigned, they were enthusiastic. "For the first time since the last
days of the monarchy," historian Joachim Fest has conceded, "the
majority of the Germans now had the feeling that they could identify
with the state."�
"You talk about persecution!" he thundered in an impromptu response to
an address by the Social Democratic speaker. "I think that there are
only a few of us [in our party] here who did not have to suffer
persecutions in prison from your side ... You seem to have totally
forgotten that for years our shirts were ripped off our backs because
you did not like the color . . . We have outgrown your persecutions!"
"In those days," he scathingly continued, "our newspapers were banned
and banned and again banned, our meetings were forbidden, and we were
forbidden to speak, I was forbidden to speak, for years on. And now
you say that criticism is salutary!"�
Hitler's millions of followers had rediscovered the primal strength of
rough, uncitified man, of a time when men still had backbone�
Gustav Noske, the lumberjack who became defense minister - and the
most valiant defender of the embattled republic in the tumultuous
months immediately following the collapse of 1918 - acknowledged
honestly in 1944, when the Third Reich was already rapidly breaking
down, that the great majority of the German people still remained true
to Hitler because of the social renewal he had brought to the working
class�
Here again, well before the collapse of party-ridden Weimar Republic,
disillusion with the unions had become widespread among the working
masses. They were starving. The hundreds of Socialist and Communist
deputies stood idly by, impotent to provide any meaningful help to the
desperate proletariat.
Their leaders had no proposals to remedy, even partially, the great
distress of the people; no plans for large-scale public works, no
industrial restructuring, no search for markets abroad.
Moreover, they offered no energetic resistance to the pillaging by
foreign countries of the Reich's last financial resources: this a
consequence of the Treaty of Versailles that the German Socialists had
voted to ratify in June of 1919, and which they had never since had
the courage effectively to oppose�
In 1930, 1931 and 1932, German workers had watched the disaster grow:
the number of unemployed rose from two million to three, to four, to
five, then to six million. At the same time, unemployment benefits
fell lower and lower, finally to disappear completely. Everywhere one
saw dejection and privation: emaciated mothers, children wasting away
in sordid lodgings, and thousands of beggars in long sad lines.
The failure, or incapacity, of the leftist leaders to act, not to
mention their insensitivity, had stupefied the working class. Of what
use were such leaders with their empty heads and empty hearts -- and,
often enough, full pockets?
Well before January 30, thousands of workers had already joined up
with Hitler's dynamic formations, which were always hard at it where
they were most needed. Many joined the National Socialists when they
went on strike. Hitler, himself a former worker and a plain man like
themselves, was determined to eliminate unemployment root and branch.
He wanted not merely to defend the laborer's right to work, but to
make his calling one of honor, to insure him respect and to integrate
him fully into a living community of all the Germans, who had been
divided class against class.
In January 1933, Hitler's victorious troops were already largely
proletarian in character, including numerous hardfisted street
brawlers, many unemployed, who no longer counted economically or
socially.
Meanwhile, membership in the Marxist labor unions had fallen off
enormously: among thirteen million socialist and Communist voters in
1932, no more than five million were union members. Indifference and
discouragement had reached such levels that many members no longer
paid their union dues. Many increasingly dispirited Marxist leaders
began to wonder if perhaps the millions of deserters were the ones who
saw things clearly. Soon they wouldn't wonder any longer.
Even before Hitler won Reichstag backing for his "Enabling Act,"
Germany's giant labor union federation, the ADGB, had begun to rally
to the National Socialist cause. As historian Joachim Fest
acknowledged: "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee
addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest,
Hitler, p. 413.)
Hitler than took a bold and clever step. The unions had always
clamored to have the First of May recognized as a worker's holiday,
but the Weimar Republic had never acceded to their request. Hitler,
never missing an opportunity, grasped this one with both hands. He did
more than grant this reasonable demand: he proclaimed the First of May
a national holiday�
I myself attended the memorable meeting at the Tempelhof field in
1933. By nine o'clock that morning, giant columns, some of workers,
others of youth groups, marching in cadence down the pavement of
Berlin's great avenues, had started off towards the airfield to which
Hitler had called together all Germans. All Germany would follow the
rally as it was transmitted nationwide by radio�
In the dark, a group of determined opponents could easily have heckled
Hitler or otherwise sabotaged the meeting. Perhaps a third of the
onlookers had been Socialists or Communists only three months
previously. But not a single hostile voice was raised during the
entire ceremony. There was only universal acclamation.
Ceremony is the right word for it. It was an almost magical rite.
Hitler and Goebbels had no equals in the arranging of dedicatory
ceremonies of this sort. First there were popular songs, then great
Wagnerian hymns to grip the audience. Germany has a passion for
orchestral music, and Wagner taps the deepest and most secret vein of
the German soul, its romanticism, its inborn sense of the powerful and
the grand.
Meanwhile the hundreds of flags floated above the rostrum, redeemed
from the darkness by arrows of light.
Now Hitler strode to the rostrum. For those standing at the of the
field, his face must have appeared vanishingly small, but his words
flooded instantaneously across the acres of people in his audience.
A Latin audience would have preferred a voice less harsh, more
delicately expressive. But there was no doubt that Hitler spoke to the
psyche of the German people.
Germans have rarely had the good fortune to experience the enchantment
of the spoken word. In Germany, the tone has always been set by
ponderous speakers, more fond of elephantine pedantry than oratorical
passion. Hitler, as a speaker, was a prodigy, the greatest orator of
his century. He possessed, above all, what the ordinary speaker lacks:
a mysterious ability to project power.
A bit like a medium or sorcerer, he was seized, even transfixed, as he
addressed a crowd. It responded to Hitler's projection of power,
radiating it back, establishing, in the course of myriad exchanges, a
current that both orator and audience gave to and drew from equally.
One had to personally experience him speaking to understand this
phenomenon.
This special gift is what lay at the basis of Hitler's ability to win
over the masses. His high-voltage, lightning-like projection
transported and transformed all who experienced it. Tens of millions
were enlightened, riveted and inflamed by the fire of his anger,
irony, and passion.
By the time the cheering died away that May first evening, hundreds of
thousands of previously indifferent or even hostile workers who had
come to Tempelhof at the urging of their labor federation leaders were
now won over. They had become followers, like the SA stormtroopers
whom so many there that evening had brawled with in recent years.
The great human sea surged back from Tempelhof to Berlin. A million
and a half people had arrived in perfect order, and their departure
was just as orderly. No bottlenecks halted the cars and busses. For
those of us who witnessed it, this rigorous, yet joyful, discipline of
a contented people was in itself a source of wonder. Everything about
the May Day mass meeting had come off as smoothly clockwork.
The memory of that fabulous crowd thronging back to the center of
Berlin will never leave me. A great many were on foot. Their faces
were now different faces, as though they had been imbued with a
strange and totally new spirit. The non-Germans in the crowd were as
if stunned, and no less impressed than Hitler's fellow countrymen.
The French ambassador, Andr� Fran�ois-Poncet, noted:
The foreigners on the speaker's platform as guests of honor were not
alone in carrying away the impression of a truly beautiful and
wonderful public festival, an impression that was created by the
regime's genius for organization, by the night time display of
uniforms, by the play of lights, the rhythm of the music, by the flags
and the colorful fireworks; and they were not alone in thinking that a
breath of reconciliation and unity was passing over the Third Reich.
"It is our wish," Hitler had exclaimed, as though taking heaven as his
witness, "to get along together and to struggle together as brothers,
so that at the hour when we shall come before God, we might say to
him: 'See, Lord, we have changed. The German people are no longer a
people ashamed, a people mean and cowardly and divided. No, Lord! The
German people have become strong in their spirit, in their will, in
their perseverance, in their acceptance of any sacrifice. Lord, we
remain faithful to Thee! Bless our struggle!" (A. Fran�ois-Poncet,
Souvenirs d'une ambassade � Berlin, p. 128.)
Who else could have made such an incantatory appeal without making
himself look ridiculous?
No politician had ever spoken of the rights of workers with such faith
and such force, or had laid out in such clear terms the social plan he
pledged to carry out on behalf of the common people.
The next day, the newspaper of the proletarian left, the "Union
Journal," reported on this mass meeting at which at least two thirds
-- a million -- of those attending were workers. "This May First was
victory day," the paper summed up.
With the workers thus won over, what further need was there for the
thousands of labor union locals that for so long had poisoned the
social life of the Reich and which, in any case, had accomplished
nothing of a lasting, positive nature?
Within hours of the conclusion of that "victory" meeting at the
Tempelhof field, the National Socialists were able to peacefully take
complete control of Germany's entire labor union organization,
including all its buildings, enterprises and banks. An era of Marxist
obstruction abruptly came to an end : from now on, a single national
organization would embody the collective will and interests of all of
Germany's workers.
Although he was now well on his way to creating what he pledged would
be a true "government of the people," Hitler also realized that great
obstacles remained. For one thing, the Communist rulers in Moscow had
not dropped their guard -- or their guns. Restoring the nation would
take more than words and promises, it would take solid achievements.
Only then would the enthusiasm shown by the working class at the May
First mass meeting be an expression of lasting victory.
How could Hitler solve the great problem that had defied solution by
everyone else (both in Germany and abroad): putting millions of
unemployed back to work?
What would Hitler do about wages? Working hours? Leisure time?
Housing? How would he succeed in winning, at long last, respect for
the rights and dignity of the worker?
How could men's lives be improved -- materially, morally, and, one
might even say, spiritually? How would he proceed to build a new
society fit for human beings, free of the inertia, injustices and
prejudices of the past?
"National Socialism," Hitler had declared at the outset, "has its
mission and its hour; it is not just a passing movement but a phase of
history."
The instruments of real power now in his hands -- an authoritarian
state, its provinces subordinate but nonetheless organic parts of the
national whole -- Hitler had acted quickly to shake himself free of
the last constraints of the impotent sectarian political parties.
Moreover, he was now able to direct a cohesive labor force that was no
longer split into a thousand rivulets but flowed as a single, mighty
current.
Hitler was self-confident, sure of the power of his own conviction. He
had no intention, or need, to resort to the use of physical force.
Instead, he intended to win over, one by one, the millions of Germans
who were still his adversaries, and even those who still hated him.
His conquest of Germany had taken years of careful planning and hard
work. Similarly, he would now realize his carefully worked out plans
for transforming the state and society. This meant not merely changes
in administrative or governmental structures, but far-reaching social
programs.
He had once vowed: "The hour will come when the 15 million people who
now hate us will be solidly behind us and will acclaim with us the new
revival we shall create together." Eventually he would succeed in
winning over even many of his most refractory skeptics and
adversaries.
His army of converts was already forming ranks. In a remarkable
tribute, historian Joachim Fest felt obliged to acknowledge
unequivocally:
Hitler had moved rapidly from the status of a demagogue to that of a
respected statesman. The craving to join the ranks of the victors was
spreading like an epidemic, and the shrunken minority of those who
resisted the urge were being visibly pushed into isolation -- The past
was dead. The future, it seemed, belonged to the regime, which had
more and more followers, which was being hailed everywhere and
suddenly had sound reasons on its side.
And even the prominent leftist writer Kurt Tucholsky, sensing the
direction of the inexorable tide that was sweeping Germany, vividly
commented: "You don't go railing against the ocean." (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 415 f.)
"Our power," Hitler was now able to declare, "no longer belongs to any
territorial fraction of the Reich, nor to any single class of the
nation, but to the people in its totality."
Much still remained to be done, however. So far, Hitler had succeeded
in clearing the way of obstacles to his program. Now the time to build
had arrived.
So many others had failed to tackle the many daunting problems that
were now his responsibility. Above all, the nation demanded a solution
to the great problem of unemployment. Could Hitler now succeed where
others had so dismally failed?�
Unemployment could be combated and eliminated only by giving industry
the financial means to start up anew, to modernize, thus creating
millions of new jobs.
The normal rate of consumption would not be restored, let alone
increased, unless one first raised the starvation-level allowances
that were making purchases of any kind a virtual impossibility. On the
contrary, production and sales would have to be restored before the
six million unemployed could once again become purchasers.
The great economic depression could be overcome only by restimulating
industry, by bringing industry into step with the times, and by
promoting the development of new products�
Nearly ten years earlier, while in his prison cell, Hitler had already
envisioned a formidable system of national highways. He had also
conceived of a small, easily affordable automobile (later known as the
"Volkswagen"), and had even suggested its outline. It should have the
shape of a June bug, he proposed. Nature itself suggested the car's
aerodynamic line.
Until Hitler came to power, a car was the privilege of the rich. It
was not financially within the reach of the middle class, much less of
the worker. The "Volkswagen," costing one-tenth as much as the
standard automobile of earlier years, would eventually become a
popular work vehicle and a source of pleasure after work: a way to
unwind and get some fresh air, and of discovering, thanks to the new
Autobahn highway network, a magnificent country that then, in its
totality, was virtually unknown to the German worker.
From the beginning, Hitler wanted this economical new car to be built
for the millions. The production works would also become one of
Germany's most important industrial centers and employers.
During his imprisonment, Hitler had also drawn up plans for the
construction of popular housing developments and majestic public
buildings.
Some of Hitler's rough sketches still survive. They include groups of
individual worker's houses with their own gardens (which were to be
built in the hundreds of thousands), a plan for a covered stadium in
Berlin, and a vast congress hall, unlike any other in the world, that
would symbolize the grandeur of the National Socialist revolution.
"A building with a monumental dome," historian Werner Maser has
explained, "the plan of which he drew while he was writing Mein Kampf,
would have a span of 46 meters, a height of 220 meters, a diameter of
250 meters, and a capacity of 150 to 190 thousand people standing. The
interior of the building would have been 17 times larger than Saint
Peter's Cathedral in Rome." (W. Maser, Hitler, Adolf, p. 100.)
"That hall," architect Albert Speer has pointed out, "was not just an
idle dream impossible of achievement."
Hitler's imagination, therefore, had long been teeming with a number
of ambitious projects, many of which would eventually be realized.
Fortunately, the needed entrepreneurs, managers and technicians were
on hand. Hitler would not have to improvise.
Historian Werner Maser, although quite anti-Hitler -- like nearly all
of his colleagues (how else would they have found publishers?) - has
acknowledged: "From the beginning of his political career, he [Hitler]
took great pains systematically to arrange for whatever he was going
to need in order to carry out his plans."
"Hitler was distinguished," Maser has also noted, "by an exceptional
intelligence in technical matters." Hitler had acquired his knowledge
by devoting many thousands of hours to technical studies from the time
of his youth.
"Hitler read an endless number of books," explained Dr. Schacht. "He
acquired a very considerable amount of knowledge and made masterful
use of it in discussions and speeches. In certain respects he was a
man endowed with genius. He had ideas that no one else would ever have
thought of, ideas that resulted in the ending of great difficulties,
sometimes by measures of an astonishing simplicity or brutality."
Many billions of marks would be needed to begin the great
socioeconomic revolution that was destined, as Hitler had always
intended, to make Germany once again the European leader in industry
and commerce and, most urgently, to rapidly wipe out unemployment in
Germany. Where would the money be found? And, once obtained, how would
these funds be allotted to ensure maximum effectiveness in their
investment?
Hitler was by no means a dictator in matters of the economy. He was,
rather, a stimulator. His government would undertake to do only that
which private initiative could not.
Hitler believed in the importance of individual creative imagination
and dynamism, in the need for every person of superior ability and
skill to assume responsibility.
He also recognized the importance of the profit motive. Deprived of
the prospect of having his efforts rewarded, the person of ability
often refrains from running risks. The economic failure of Communism
has demonstrated this. In the absence of personal incentives and the
opportunity for real individual initiative, the Soviet "command
economy" lagged in all but a few fields, its industry years behind its
competitors.
State monopoly tolls the death of all initiative, and hence of all
progress.
For all men selflessly to pool their wealth might be marvelous, but it
is also contrary to human nature. Nearly every man desires that his
labor shall improve his own condition and that of his family, and
feels that his brain, creative imagination, and persistence well
deserve their reward.
Because it disregarded these basic psychological truths, Soviet
Communism, right to the end, wallowed in economic mediocrity, in spite
of its immense reservoir of manpower, its technical expertise, and its
abundant natural resources, all of which ought to have made it an
industrial and technological giant.
Hitler was always adverse to the idea of state management of the
economy. He believed in elites. "A single idea of genius," he used to
say, "has more value than a lifetime of conscientious labor in an
office."
Just as there are political or intellectual elites, so also is there
an industrial elite. A manufacturer of great ability should not be
restrained, hunted down by the internal revenue services like a
criminal, or be unappreciated by the public. On the contrary, it is
important for economic development that the industrialist be
encouraged morally and materially, as much as possible.
The most fruitful initiatives Hitler would take from 1933 on would be
on behalf of private enterprise. He would keep an eye on the quality
of their directors, to be sure, and would shunt aside incompetents,
quite a few of them at times, but he also supported the best ones,
those with the keenest minds, the most imaginative and bold, even if
their political opinions did not always agree with his own.
"There is no question," he stated very firmly, "of dismissing a
factory owner or director under the pretext that he is not a National
Socialist."
Hitler would exercise the same moderation, the same pragmatism, in the
administrative as well as in the industrial sphere.
What he demanded of his co-workers, above all, was competence and
effectiveness. The great majority of Third Reich functionaries - some
80 percent -- were never enrolled in the National Socialist party.
Several of Hitler's ministers, like Konstantin von Neurath and
Schwerin von Krosigk, and ambassadors to such key posts as Prague,
Vienna and Ankara, were not members of the party. But they were
capable�
"Herr Schacht," he said, "we are assuredly in agreement on one point:
no other single task facing the government at the moment can be so
truly urgent as conquering unemployment. That will take a lot of
money. Do you see any possibility of finding it apart from the
Reichsbank?" And after a moment, he added: "How much would it take? Do
you have any idea?"
Wishing to win Schacht over by appealing to his ambition, Hitler
smiled and then asked: "Would you be willing to once again assume
presidency of the Reichsbank?" Schacht let on that he had a
sentimental concern for Dr. Luther, and did not want to hurt the
incumbent's feelings. Playing along, Hitler reassured Schacht that he
would find an appropriate new job elsewhere for Luther.
Schacht then pricked up his ears, drew himself up, and focused his big
round eyes on Hitler: "Well, if that's the way it is," he said, "then
I am ready to assume the presidency of the Reichsbank again."
His great dream was being realized. Schacht had been president of the
Reichsbank between 1923 and 1930, but had been dismissed. Now he would
return in triumph. He felt vindicated. Within weeks, the ingenious
solution to Germany's pressing financial woes would burst forth from
his inventive brain.
"It was necessary," Schacht later explained, "to discover a method
that would avoid inflating the investment holdings of the Reichsbank
immoderately and consequently increasing the circulation of money
excessively."
"Therefore," he went on, "I had to find some means of getting the sums
that were lying idle in pockets and banks, without meaning for it to
be long term and without having it undergo the risk of depreciation.
That was the reasoning behind the Mefo bonds."
What were these "Mefo" bonds? Mefo was a contraction of the
Metallurgische Forschungs-GmbH (Metallurgic Research Company). With a
startup capitalization of one billion marks - which Hitler and Schacht
arranged to be provided by the four giant firms of Krupp, Siemens,
Deutsche Werke and Rheinmetall -- this company would eventually
promote many billions of marks worth of investment.
Enterprises, old and new, that filled government orders had only to
draw drafts on Mefo for the amounts due. These drafts, when presented
to the Reichsbank, were immediately convertible into cash. The success
of the Mefo program depended entirely on public acceptance of the Mefo
bonds. But the wily Schacht had planned well. Since Mefo bonds were
short-term bonds that could be cashed in at any time, there was no
real risk in buying, accepting or holding them. They bore an interest
of four percent -- a quite acceptable figure in those days -- whereas
banknotes hidden under the mattress earned nothing. The public quickly
took all this into consideration and eagerly accepted the bonds.
While the Reichsbank was able to offer from its own treasury a
relatively insignificant 150 million marks for Hitler's war on
unemployment, in just four years the German public subscribed more
than 12 billion marks worth of Mefo bonds!
These billions, the fruit of the combined imagination, ingenuity and
astuteness of Hitler and Schacht, swept away the temporizing and
fearful conservatism of the bankers. Over the next four years, this
enormous credit reserve would make miracles possible.
Soon after the initial billion-mark credit, Schacht added another
credit of 600 million in order to finance the start of Hitler's grand
program for highway construction. This Autobahn program provided
immediate work for 100,000 of the unemployed, and eventually assured
wages for some 500,000 workers.
As large as this outlay was, it was immediately offset by a
corresponding cutback in government unemployment benefits, and by the
additional tax revenue generated as a result of the increase in living
standard (sping) of the newly employed.
Within a few months, thanks to the credit created by the Mefo bonds,
private industry once again dared to assume risks and expand. Germans
returned to work by the hundreds of thousands.
Was Schacht solely responsible for this extraordinary turnaround?
After the war, he answered for himself as a Nuremberg Tribunal
defendant, where he was charged with having made possible the Reich's
economic revival:
I don't think Hitler was reduced to begging for my help. If I had not
served him, he would have found other methods, other means. He was not
a man to give up. It's easy enough for you to say, Mr. Prosecutor,
that I should have watched Hitler die and not lifted a finger. But the
entire working class would have died with him!
Even Marxists recognized Hitler's success, and their own failure. In
the June 1934 issue of the Zeitschrift f�r Sozialismus, the journal of
the German Social Democrats in exile, this acknowledgement appears:
Faced with the despair of proletarians reduced to joblessness, of
young people with diplomas and no future, of the middle classes of
merchants and artisans condemned to bankruptcy, and of farmers
terribly threatened by the collapse in agricultural prices, we all
failed. We weren't capable of offering the masses anything but
speeches about the glory of socialism.
VI. The Social Revolution
Hitler's tremendous social achievement in putting Germany's six
million unemployed back to work is seldom acknowledged today. Although
it was much more than a transitory achievement, "democratic"
historians routinely dismiss it in just a few lines. Since 1945, not a
single objective scholarly study has been devoted to this highly
significant, indeed unprecedented, historical phenomenon.
Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically
changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were
transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers,
with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields.
Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working
class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was
introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A
wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young
workers was established, with the world's best system of technical
training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health
insurance system was the world's most modern and complete.
This remarkable record of social achievement is routinely hushed up
today because it is embarrasses those who uphold the orthodox view of
the Third Reich. Otherwise, readers might begin to think that perhaps
Hitler was the greatest social builder of the twentieth century�
Nevertheless, restoring work and bread to millions of unemployed who
had been living in misery for years; restructuring industrial life;
conceiving and establishing an organization for the effective defense
and betterment of the nation's millions of wage earners; creating a
new bureaucracy and judicial system that guaranteed the civic rights
of each member of the national community, while simultaneously holding
each person to his or her responsibilities as a German citizen: this
organic body of reforms was part of a single, comprehensive plan,
which Hitler had conceived and worked out years earlier.
Without this plan, the nation would have collapsed into anarchy.
All-encompassing, this program included broad industrial recovery as
well as detailed attention to even construction of comfortable inns
along the new highway network.
It took several years for a stable social structure to emerge from the
French Revolution. The Soviets needed even more time: five years after
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, hundreds of thousands of Russians
were still dying of hunger and disease. In Germany, by contrast, the
great machinery was in motion within months, with organization and
accomplishment quickly meshing together�
Hitler personally dug the first spadeful of earth for the first
Autobahn highway, linking Frankfurt-am-Main with Darmstadt. For the
occasion, he brought along Dr. Schacht, the man whose visionary credit
wizardry had made the project possible. The official procession moved
ahead, three cars abreast in front, then six across, spanning the
entire width of the autobahn�
Hitler's plan to build thousands of low-cost homes also demanded a
vast mobilization of manpower. He had envisioned housing that would be
attractive, cozy, and affordable for millions of ordinary German
working-class families. He had no intention of continuing to tolerate,
as his predecessors had, cramped, ugly "rabbit warren" housing for the
German people. The great barracks-like housing projects on the
outskirts of factory towns, packed with cramped families, disgusted
him.
The greater part of the houses he would build were single story,
detached dwellings, with small yards where children could romp, wives
could grow vegetable and flower gardens, while the bread-winners could
read their newspapers in peace after the day's work. These
single-family homes were built to conform to the architectural styles
of the various German regions, retaining as much as possible the
charming local variants.
Wherever there was no practical alternative to building large
apartment complexes, Hitler saw to it that the individual apartments
were spacious, airy and enhanced by surrounding lawns and gardens
where the children could play safely.
The new housing was, of course, built in conformity with the highest
standards of public health, a consideration notoriously neglected in
previous working-class projects.
Generous loans, amortizable in ten years, were granted to newly
married couples so they could buy their own homes. At the birth of
each child, a fourth of the debt was cancelled. Four children, at the
normal rate of a new arrival every two and a half years, sufficed to
cancel the entire loan debt.
Once, during a conversation with Hitler, I expressed my astonishment
at this policy. "But then, you never get back the total amount of your
loans?," I asked. "How so?" he replied, smiling. "Over a period of ten
years, a family with four children brings in much more than our loans,
through the taxes levied on a hundred different items of consumption."
As it happened, tax revenues increased every year, in proportion to
the rise in expenditures for Hitler's social programs. In just a few
years, revenue from taxes tripled. Hitler's Germany never experienced
a financial crisis.
To stimulate the moribund economy demanded the nerve, which Hitler
had, to invest money that the government didn't yet have, rather than
passively waiting -- in accordance with "sound" financial principles
-- for the economy to revive by itself.
Today, our whole era is dying economically because we have succumbed
to fearful hesitation. Enrichment follows investment, not the other
way around�
Even before the year 1933 had ended, Hitler had succeeded in building
202,119 housing units. Within four years he would provide the German
people with nearly a million and a half (1,458,128) new dwellings!
Moreover, workers would no longer be exploited as they had been. A
month's rent for a worker could not exceed 26 marks, or about an
eighth of the average wage then. Employees with more substantial
salaries paid monthly rents of up to 45 marks maximum.
Equally effective social measures were taken in behalf of farmers, who
had the lowest incomes. In 1933 alone 17,611 new farm houses were
built, each of them surrounded by a parcel of land one thousand square
meters in size. Within three years, Hitler would build 91,000 such
farmhouses�
Everywhere industry was hiring again, with some firms -- like Krupp,
IG Farben and the large automobile manufacturers -- taking on new
workers on a very large scale. As the country became more prosperous,
car sales increased by more than 80,000 units in 1933 alone.
Employment in the auto industry doubled. Germany was gearing up for
full production, with private industry leading the way.
The new government lavished every assistance on the private sector,
the chief factor in employment as well as production. Hitler almost
immediately made available 500 million marks in credits to private
business.
This start-up assistance given to German industry would repay itself
many times over. Soon enough, another two billion marks would be
loaned to the most enterprising companies. Nearly half would go into
new wages and salaries, saving the treasury an estimated three hundred
million marks in unemployment benefits. Added to the hundreds of
millions in tax receipts spurred by the business recovery, the state
quickly recovered its investment, and more.
Hitler's entire economic policy would be based on the following
equation: risk large sums to undertake great public works and to spur
the renewal and modernization of industry, then later recover the
billions invested through invisible and painless tax revenues. It
didn't take long for Germany to see the results of Hitler's recovery
formula.
Economic recovery, as important as it was, nevertheless wasn't
Hitler's only objective. As he strived to restore full employment,
Hitler never lost sight of his goal of creating a organization
powerful enough to stand up to capitalist owners and managers, who had
shown little concern for the health and welfare of the entire national
community.
Hitler would impose on everyone -- powerful boss and lowly wage earner
alike -- his own concept of the organic social community. Only the
loyal collaboration of everyone could assure the prosperity of all
classes and social groups.
Consistent with their doctrine, Germany's Marxist leaders had set
class against class, helping to bring the country to the brink of
economic collapse. Deserting their Marxist unions and political
parties in droves, most workers had come to realize that strikes and
grievances their leaders incited only crippled production, and thus
the workers as well.
By the of 1932, in any case, the discredited labor unions were
drowning in massive debt that realistically could never be repaid.
Some of the less scrupulous union officials, sensing the oncoming
catastrophe, had begun stealing hundreds of thousands of marks from
the workers they represented. The Marxist leaders had failed:
socially, financially and morally.
Every joint human activity requires a leader. The head of a factory or
business is also the person naturally responsible for it. He oversees
every aspect of production and work. In Hitler's Germany, the head of
a business had to be both a capable director and a person concerned
for the social justice and welfare of his employees. Under Hitler,
many owners and managers who had proven to be unjust, incompetent or
recalcitrant lost their jobs, or their businesses.
A considerable number of legal guarantees protected the worker against
any abuse of authority at the workplace. Their purpose was to insure
that the rights of workers were respected, and that workers were
treated as worthy collaborators, not just as animated tools. Each
industrialist was legally obliged to collaborate with worker delegates
in drafting shop regulations that were not imposed from above but
instead adapted to each business enterprise and its particular working
conditions. These regulations had to specify "the length of the
working day, the time and method of paying wages, and the safety
rules, and to be posted throughout the factory," within easy access of
both the worker whose interests might be angered and the owner or
manager whose orders might be subverted.
The thousands of different, individual versions of such regulations
served to create a healthy rivalry, with every factory group vying to
outdo the others in efficiency and justice.
One of the first reforms to benefit German workers was the
establishment of paid vacations. In France, the leftist Popular Front
government would noisily claim, in 1936, to have originated legally
mandated paid vacations -- and stingy ones at that, only one week per
year. But it was actually Hitler who first established them, in 1933
-- and they were two or three times more generous.
Under Hitler, every factory employee had the legal right to paid
vacation. Previously, paid vacations had not normally exceed four or
five days, and nearly half of the younger workers had no vacation time
at all. If anything, Hitler favored younger workers; the youngest
workers received more generous vacations. This was humane and made
sense: a young person has more need of rest and fresh air to develop
his maturing strength and vigor. Thus, they enjoyed a full 18 days of
paid vacation per year.
Today, more than half a century later, these figures have been
surpassed, but in 1933 they far exceeded European norms.
The standard vacation was twelve days. Then, from the age of 25 on, it
went up to 18 days. After ten years with the company, workers got a
still longer vacation: 21 days, or three times what the French
socialists would grant the workers of their country in 1936.
Hitler introduced the standard forty-hour work week in Europe. As for
overtime work, it was now compensated, as nowhere else in the
continent at the time, at an increased pay rate. And with the
eight-hour work day now the norm, overtime work became more readily
available.
In another innovation, work breaks were made longer: two hours each
day, allowing greater opportunity for workers to relax, and to make
use of the playing fields that large industries were now required to
provide.
Whereas a worker's right to job security had been virtually
non-existent, now an employee could no longer be dismissed at the sole
discretion of the employer. Hitler saw to it that workers' rights were
spelled out and enforced. Henceforth, an employer had to give four
weeks notice before firing an employee, who then had up to two months
to appeal the dismissal. Dismissals could also be annulled by the
"Courts of Social Honor" (Ehrengerichte).
This Court was one of three great institutions that were established
to protect German workers. The others were the "Labor Commissions" and
the "Council of Trust."
The "Council of Trust" (Vertrauensrat) was responsible for
establishing and developing a real spirit of community between
management and labor. "In every business enterprise," the 1934 "Labor
Charter" law stipulated, "the employer and head of the enterprise
(F�hrer), the employees and workers, personnel of the enterprise,
shall work jointly toward the goal of the enterprise and the common
good of the nation."
No longer would either be exploited by the other -- neither the worker
by arbitrary whim of the employer, nor the employer through the
blackmail of strikes for political ends.
Article 35 of the "Labor Charter" law stated: "Every member of an
enterprise community shall assume the responsibility required by his
position in said common enterprise." In short, each enterprise would
be headed by a dynamic executive, charged with a sense of the greater
community -- no longer a selfish capitalist with unconditional,
arbitrary power.
"The interest of the community may require that an incapable or
unworthy employer be relieved of his duties," the "Labor Charter"
stipulated. The employer was no longer unassailable, an all-powerful
boss with the last word on hiring and firing his staff. He, too, would
be subject to the workplace regulations, which he was now obliged to
respect no less than the least of his employees. The law conferred the
honor and responsibility of authority on the employer only insofar as
he merited it�
In the Third Reich, the worker knew that "exploitation of his physical
strength in bad faith or in violation of his honor" was no longer
tolerated. He had obligations to the community, but he shared these
obligations with every other member of the enterprise, from the chief
executive to the messenger boy. Finally, the German worker had clearly
defined social rights, which were arbitrated and enforced by
independent agencies. And while all this had been achieved in an
atmosphere of justice and moderation, it nevertheless constituted a
genuine social revolution�
Factories and shops, large and small, were altered or transformed to
conform to the strictest standards of cleanliness and hygiene:
interiors, so often dark and stifling, were opened up to light;
playing fields were constructed; rest areas where workers could unbend
during break, were set aside; employee cafeterias and respectable
locker rooms were opened. The larger industrial establishments, in
addition to providing the normally required conventional sports
facilities, were obliged to put in swimming pools!
In just three years, these achievements would reach unimagined
heights: more than two thousand factories refitted and beautified;
23,000 work premises modernized; 800 buildings designed exclusively
for meetings; 1,200 playing fields; 13,000 sanitary facilities; 17,000
cafeterias.
To assure the healthy development of the working class, physical
education courses were instituted for younger workers. Some 8,000 were
eventually organized. Technical training was equally emphasized.
Hundreds of work schools, and thousands of technical courses were
created. There were examinations for professional competence, and
competitions in which generous prizes were awarded to outstanding
masters of their craft.
Eight hundred departmental inspectors and 17,300 local inspectors were
employed to conscientiously monitor and promote these improvements.
To provide affordable vacations for German workers on a hitherto
unprecedented scale, Hitler established the "Strength through Joy"
program. As a result, hundreds of thousands of workers were now able
to make relaxing vacation trips on land and sea each summer.
Magnificent cruise ships were built, and special trains brought
vacationers to the mountains and the seashore. In just a few years,
Germany's working-class tourists would log a distance equivalent to 54
times the circumference of the earth! And thanks to generous state
subsidies, the cost to workers of these popular vacation excursions
was nearly insignificant�
Was Hitler's transformation of the lot of the working class
authoritarian? Without a doubt. And yet, for a people that had grown
sick and tired of anarchy, this new authoritarianism wasn't regarded
as an imposition. In fact, people have always accepted a strong man's
leadership.
In any case, there is no doubt that the attitude of the German working
class, which was still two-thirds non-Nazi at the start of 1933, soon
changed completely. As Belgian author Marcel Laloire noted at the
time:
When you make your way through the cities of Germany and go into the
working-class districts, go through the factories, the construction
yards, you are astonished to find so many workers on the job sporting
the Hitler insignia, to see so many flags with the swastika, black on
a bright red background, in the most densely populated districts.
Hitler's "German Labor Front" (Deutsche Arbeitsfront), which
incorporated all workers and employers, was for the most part eagerly
accepted. The steel spades of the sturdy young lads of the "National
Labor Service" (Reichsarbeitsdienst) could also be seen gleaming along
the highways.
Hitler created the National Labor Service not only to alleviate
unemployment, but to bring together, in absolute equality, and in the
same uniform, both the sons of millionaires and the sons of the
poorest families for several months' common labor and living.
All performed the same work, all were subject to the same discipline;
they enjoyed the same pleasures and benefited from the same physical
and moral development. At the same construction sites and in the same
barracks, Germans became conscious of what they had in common, grew to
understand one another, and discarded their old prejudices of class
and caste.
After a hitch in the National Labor Service, a young worker knew that
the rich man's son was not a pampered monster, while the young lad of
wealthy family knew that the worker's son had no less honor than a
nobleman or an heir to riches; they had lived and worked together as
comrades. Social hatred was vanishing, and a socially united people
was being born.
Hitler could go into factories -- something few men of the so-called
Right would have risked in the past -- and hold forth to crowds of
workers, at times in the thousands, as at the huge Siemens works. "In
contrast to the von Papens and other country gentlemen," he might tell
them, "in my youth I was a worker like you. And in my heart of hearts,
I have remained what I was then."
During his twelve years in power, no untoward incident ever occurred
at any factory he visited. Hitler was at home when he went among the
people, and he was received like a member of the family returning home
after making a success of himself.
But the Chancellor of the Third Reich wanted more than popular
approval. He wanted that approval to be freely, widely, and repeatedly
expressed by popular vote. No people was ever be more frequently asked
for their electoral opinion than the German people of that era -- five
times in five years.
For Hitler, it was not enough that the people voted from time to time,
as in the previous democratic system. In those days, voters were
rarely appealed to, and when they expressed an opinion, they were
often ill-informed and apathetic. After an election, years might go
by, during which the politicians were heedless and inaccessible, the
electorate powerless to vote on their actions.
To enable the German public to express its opinion on the occasion of
important events of social, national, or international significance,
Hitler provided the people a new means of approving or rejecting his
own actions as Chancellor: the plebiscite.
Hitler recognized the right of all the people, men and women alike, to
vote by secret ballot: to voice their opinion of his policies, or to
make a well-grounded judgment on this or that great decision in
domestic or foreign affairs. Rather than a formalistic routine,
democracy became a vital, active program of supervision that was
renewed annually.
The articles of the "Plebiscite Law" were brief and clear:
1. The Reich government may ask the people whether or not it
approves of a measure planned by or taken by the government. This may
also apply to a law.
2. A measure submitted to plebiscite will be considered as
established when it receives a simple majority of the votes. This will
apply as well to a law modifying the Constitution.
3. If the people approves the measure in question, it will be
applied in conformity with article III of the Law for Overcoming the
Distress of the People and the Reich.
The Reich Interior Ministry is authorized to take all legal and
administrative measures necessary to carry out this law.
Berlin, July 14, 1933.
Hitler, Frick�
From the first months of 1933, his accomplishments were public fact,
for all to see. Before end of the year, unemployment in Germany had
fallen from more than 6,000,000 to 3,374,000. Thus, 2,627,000 jobs had
been created since the previous February, when Hitler began his
"gigantic task!" A simple question: Who in Europe ever achieved
similar results in so short a time?�
In his detailed and critical biography of Hitler, Joachim Fest limited
his treatment of Hitler's extraordinary social achievements in 1933 to
a few paragraphs. All the same, Fest did not refrain from
acknowledging:
The regime insisted that it was not the rule of one social class above
all others, and by granting everyone opportunities to rise, it in fact
demonstrated class neutrality -- These measures did indeed break
through the old, petrified social structures. They tangibly improved
the material condition of much of the population. (J. Fest, Hitler,
pp. 434-435.)
Not without reason were the swastika banners waving proudly throughout
the working-class districts where, just a year ago, they had been
unceremoniously torn down.
>
> Note that you posted this all before as "Polaris" and "Neptune3"
>and I refuted it before. Yet you still post it, verbatim. Why?
The "refute" part is only in your mind.
>I've clearly shown why it's rubbish so why keep posting it?
>Note: everything I wrote after "capitalism and communism are both
>bad" is a cut and paste of arguments that you didn't refute last time.
I'm saving this for pastes too.
http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
Topaz
live in company dormitories with free food. They work 14 hours a day,
seven days a week.
Capitalists call this "freedom" because they are not forced to work
there and they can quit any time. And Capitalists are free to pay them
as little as possible.
As more and more Americans lose their jobs to third world workers, the
capitalists will tell us that we need more capitalism, and we need to
abolish such things as the minimum wage so we can "compete" with the
third world. Then they can set up the dormitories here and we can work
14 hours a day and seven days a week. It's all based on "supply and
demand". Unfortunately for human beings there is a big supply of us
people.
Actually, Capitalism is a bogus concept. We don't have to put up
with this greed. We could do what J. P. Morgan suggested - that a
business leader should not be allowed to make more than 20 times the
average nonexecutive wage of his workers. This shares the wealth. The
business leader is forced to pay his workers more, while at the same
time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for business leaders to
start new businesses.
Topaz
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Capitalism puts the highest value on the "people". It does so because it
>trusts the "people" to make the right decisions about what they want or
>need.
"Libertarians believe that once one is burned by charlatans,
they'll simply stop doing business with the ogres who proselytize
inferior work and product. But, isn't the hue and cry for governmental
regulation the mechanism that the public demands when they've been
ripped-off by nefarious business people? In many cases, especially
with bigger ticket items, they don't have the luxury of not doing
business with a sinister plutocrat, but must buy and weep over shoddy
business practices...
"Surely, we've seen enough charlatans to
know that the market itself cannot monitor its own activities to the
good of all!"
D. Stephen Heersink
>
>The more a business pays for their labor, the more they have to sell their
>products for in order to survive. For a bsuiness it really does not matter
>how much their labor cost, as long as everyone is in the same boat. Then
>all of them would be charging about the same price for the products they
>sell. But in the end, it is not the business who pays for that higher labor
>cost, it is their customers who pay for that higher labor cost.
Chinese workers pay, in U.S. money is from $600 to $1200 a year. Many
live in company dormitories with free food. They work 14 hours a day,
seven days a week.
Capitalists call this "freedom" because they are not forced to work
there and they can quit any time. And Capitalists are free to pay them
as little as possible.
As more and more Americans lose their jobs to third world workers, the
capitalists will tell us that we need more capitalism, and we need to
abolish such things as the minimum wage so we can "compete" with the
third world. Then they can set up the dormitories here and we can work
14 hours a day and seven days a week. It's all based on "supply and
demand". Unfortunately for human beings there is a big supply of us
people.
Actually, Capitalism is a bogus concept. We don't have to put up
with this greed. We could do what J. P. Morgan suggested - that a
business leader should not be allowed to make more than 20 times the
average nonexecutive wage of his workers. This shares the wealth. The
business leader is forced to pay his workers more, while at the same
time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for business leaders to
start new businesses.
>
>By the way if you see this posting, reduce the number of Newsroups you send
>it, because some Internet Newsgroup providers will not allow us to send
>messages when they go to too many newsgroups.
That is the wrong thing to say. For one thing, we don't know which
newsgroup you are posting from. Not that I would cut a relevant group
anyway.
Jerry Okamura
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:52:08 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Capitalism puts the highest value on the "people". It does so because it
>>trusts the "people" to make the right decisions about what they want or
>>need.
>
>
> "Libertarians believe that once one is burned by charlatans,
> they'll simply stop doing business with the ogres who proselytize
> inferior work and product. But, isn't the hue and cry for governmental
> regulation the mechanism that the public demands when they've been
> ripped-off by nefarious business people? In many cases, especially
> with bigger ticket items, they don't have the luxury of not doing
> business with a sinister plutocrat, but must buy and weep over shoddy
> business practices...
>
> "Surely, we've seen enough charlatans to
> know that the market itself cannot monitor its own activities to the
> good of all!"
>
> D. Stephen Heersink
>
Does it matter who "rips" you off, an individual or the government?
>
>
>>
>>The more a business pays for their labor, the more they have to sell their
>>products for in order to survive. For a bsuiness it really does not
>>matter
>>how much their labor cost, as long as everyone is in the same boat. Then
>>all of them would be charging about the same price for the products they
>>sell. But in the end, it is not the business who pays for that higher
>>labor
>>cost, it is their customers who pay for that higher labor cost.
>
> Chinese workers pay, in U.S. money is from $600 to $1200 a year. Many
> live in company dormitories with free food. They work 14 hours a day,
> seven days a week.
Is China a capitalistic society?
>
> Capitalists call this "freedom" because they are not forced to work
> there and they can quit any time. And Capitalists are free to pay them
> as little as possible.
>
> As more and more Americans lose their jobs to third world workers, the
> capitalists will tell us that we need more capitalism, and we need to
> abolish such things as the minimum wage so we can "compete" with the
> third world. Then they can set up the dormitories here and we can work
> 14 hours a day and seven days a week. It's all based on "supply and
> demand". Unfortunately for human beings there is a big supply of us
> people.
>
You got it backwards. These third world countries would not be third world
countries if they had embraced the capitalist system.
> Actually, Capitalism is a bogus concept. We don't have to put up
> with this greed. We could do what J. P. Morgan suggested - that a
> business leader should not be allowed to make more than 20 times the
> average nonexecutive wage of his workers. This shares the wealth. The
> business leader is forced to pay his workers more, while at the same
> time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for business leaders to
> start new businesses.
>
>
Replacing it with government greed? And when government gets greedy, you
also lose your freedom.
>>
>>By the way if you see this posting, reduce the number of Newsroups you
>>send
>>it, because some Internet Newsgroup providers will not allow us to send
>>messages when they go to too many newsgroups.
>
> That is the wrong thing to say. For one thing, we don't know which
> newsgroup you are posting from. Not that I would cut a relevant group
> anyway.
>
It does not matter. If I do not see the posting, I won't respond.
Topaz
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Does it matter who "rips" you off, an individual or the government?
If you have a government that rips you off, it should be abolished
and replaced by a government that is on your side. A good government
would also stop individuals from ripping you off.
>
>Is China a capitalistic society?
Yes
Chinese workers pay, in U.S. money is from $600 to $1200 a year. Many
live in company dormitories with free food. They work 14 hours a day,
seven days a week.
Capitalists call this "freedom" because they are not forced to work
there and they can quit any time. And Capitalists are free to pay them
as little as possible.
>
>You got it backwards. These third world countries would not be third world
>countries if they had embraced the capitalist system.
Totally false. The third world is not caused by economics but by race.
The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.
All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke.
>
>Replacing it with government greed? And when government gets greedy, you
>also lose your freedom.
If you have government greed, that government should be abolished and
replaced by a government that is on your side.
>It does not matter. If I do not see the posting, I won't respond.
http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
Jerry Okamura
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:04:49 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Does it matter who "rips" you off, an individual or the government?
>
> If you have a government that rips you off, it should be abolished
> and replaced by a government that is on your side. A good government
> would also stop individuals from ripping you off.
>
>>
You can no moe "stop" individuals from ripping you off, then you can "stop"
government from ripping you off.
>>Is China a capitalistic society?
>
> Yes
Government
Type: Communist party-led state.
>
> Chinese workers pay, in U.S. money is from $600 to $1200 a year. Many
> live in company dormitories with free food. They work 14 hours a day,
> seven days a week.
>
> Capitalists call this "freedom" because they are not forced to work
> there and they can quit any time. And Capitalists are free to pay them
> as little as possible.
>
>>
>>You got it backwards. These third world countries would not be third
>>world
>>countries if they had embraced the capitalist system.
>
> Totally false. The third world is not caused by economics but by race.
A racist statement.
Topaz
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>You can no moe "stop" individuals from ripping you off,
Wrong, you can have a government that cracks down on them.
> then you can "stop"
>government from ripping you off.
A government that rips you off should be abolished and replaced by a
government that is on your side.
>
>Government
>Type: Communist party-led state.
If it does nothing to stop greed it's capitalist by definition.
>A racist statement.
All liberals have is meaningless buzz words. They call people racists.
Whatever. They don't have anything meaningful to say.
by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater
horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of
offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press
and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and
arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as
part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never
shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student
reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have
attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full
alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach
against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is
racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the
word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock
is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are
rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal
more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a
clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American
meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are
equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been
declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who
questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If
blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts
for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of
racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation
for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor,
crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive
racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic.
Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White
wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of
racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their
hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have
oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must
oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be
identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since
blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be
millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and
night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no
room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion,
an indictment of White people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to
believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White
racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on
welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another
act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing
proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For
precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the
same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and
oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange
conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be
committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black
congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black
mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she
explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be
racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without
flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can,
perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been
forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White
oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable
and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not
an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would
surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal
when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost
tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the
word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and
the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black
Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are
silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative
statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks
on Whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White
candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black
opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107
"historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be
preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White
colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing.
To resist would be racist.
"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything
that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of
hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect
school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas
for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is
now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if
practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable
favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses
are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club
or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights"
organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White
People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but
is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have
set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks,
Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently,
when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found
themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club
like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror.
Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a
White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is
branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality
of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn
on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of
Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one
proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting
Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National
Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity
of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack
of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to
celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a
town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a
crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as
possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has
"diversity" been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we
are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of
Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess
of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that
approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are
non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the
country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not
to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is,
of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this
kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any
other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated
citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into
thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the
state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites
who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on
celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if
they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs
and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of
cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White
Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians
entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed
to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling
numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be
hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-
Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of
"hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and
Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and
hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can
come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential
treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are
"anti-white."
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial
policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called
racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the
company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy
the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked
and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their
own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct
from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None
of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also
champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their
own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own
dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the
displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and
cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are
cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and
cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is
perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to
love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and
El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by
setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative
action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for
accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their
languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take
possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great
people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is
prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for
it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let
themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to
dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the
history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to
strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a
people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in
surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in
history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked
into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow
"hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own
kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their
families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they
hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no
ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to
participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly
unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests
of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like
asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his
neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."
What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is
likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of
racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for
their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the
idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be
pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of
people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history -
but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.
Jerry Okamura
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:18:06 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You can no moe "stop" individuals from ripping you off,
>
> Wrong, you can have a government that cracks down on them.
yes, they can "crack down", but they cannot stop people from doing what they
want to do.
>
>> then you can "stop"
>>government from ripping you off.
>
> A government that rips you off should be abolished and replaced by a
> government that is on your side.
>
Nice words, but how do you do that?
Topaz
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>yes, they can "crack down", but they cannot stop people from doing what they
>want to do.
We can't stop all murders but we should outlaw it. We should also
outlaw greed. And we can stop a great deal of it.
>> A government that rips you off should be abolished and replaced by a
>> government that is on your side.
>>
>
>Nice words, but how do you do that.
You support a good political party. A good party would necessarily be
hated by the government and the media and all their minions.
Poetic Justice
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:40:18 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>> yes, they can "crack down", but they cannot stop people from doing what they
>> want to do.
>
> We can't stop all murders but we should outlaw it. We should also
> outlaw greed. And we can stop a great deal of it.
We call it fraud and theft... NOT greed. There are laws.
Greed is not the evil monster you attribute to it. The real evil is
government holding you down with a boot to your throat and causing some
to turn to fraud and theft.
Enforce the laws and forget who has more money than you, that isn't your
concern.
--
Jerry Okamura
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:40:18 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>yes, they can "crack down", but they cannot stop people from doing what
>>they
>>want to do.
>
> We can't stop all murders but we should outlaw it. We should also
> outlaw greed. And we can stop a great deal of it.
>
>
>>> A government that rips you off should be abolished and replaced by a
>>> government that is on your side.
>>>
>>
>>Nice words, but how do you do that.
>
> You support a good political party. A good party would necessarily be
> hated by the government and the media and all their minions.
>
that, or they would not be democrats or republicans.
Topaz
<PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>We call it fraud and theft... NOT greed. There are laws.
We need to stop greed too. Companies are laying off Americans to get
cheaper workers in Mexico and China. We should not allow them to sell
their products in America if they do that.
>
>Greed is not the evil monster you attribute to it. The real evil is
>government holding you down with a boot to your throat and causing some
>to turn to fraud and theft.
Greed is the evil monster. The government we have now is also evil
because it doesn't do enough to stop the greed.
>
>Enforce the laws and forget who has more money than you, that isn't your
>concern.
Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
the humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
all
the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
jobs.
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.
We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.
Topaz
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:m3eai55tj3v9qqccf...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:40:18 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>yes, they can "crack down", but they cannot stop people from doing what
>>>they
>>>want to do.
>>
>> We can't stop all murders but we should outlaw it. We should also
>> outlaw greed. And we can stop a great deal of it.
>>
>>
>>>> A government that rips you off should be abolished and replaced by a
>>>> government that is on your side.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nice words, but how do you do that.
>>
>> You support a good political party. A good party would necessarily be
>> hated by the government and the media and all their minions.
>>
>Those who are democrats or republicans believe that they are doing exactly
>that, or they would not be democrats or republicans.
They may believe they are doing good, but they are wrong. Nothing
good comes from democrats or republicans.
Poetic Justice
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:00:30 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> We call it fraud and theft... NOT greed. There are laws.
>
> We need to stop greed too. Companies are laying off Americans to get
> cheaper workers in Mexico and China. We should not allow them to sell
> their products in America if they do that.
Greed is NOT illegal, if you want it illegal then pass the law, that
wanting to be wealthy is illegal. Why is being financial freedom any
worse than being sexual freedom?
>> Greed is not the evil monster you attribute to it. The real evil is
>> government holding you down with a boot to your throat and causing some
>> to turn to fraud and theft.
>
> Greed is the evil monster. The government we have now is also evil
> because it doesn't do enough to stop the greed.
You are a simpleton. Some people give away all their money, should we
stop that too? After all, for every one giving, some greedy bastard is
taking.
--
Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> We call it fraud and theft... NOT greed. There are laws.
>
> We need to stop greed too. Companies are laying off Americans to get
> cheaper workers in Mexico and China. We should not allow them to sell
> their products in America if they do that.
Greed is NOT illegal, if you want it illegal then pass the law, that
wanting to be wealthy is illegal. Why is having financial freedom any
worse than having sexual freedom? Are you sexually greedy if you want
as much sex as you can get, and isn't that bad. Shouldn't you share your
partners with others that have no sex partner?
>> Greed is not the evil monster you attribute to it. The real evil is
>> government holding you down with a boot to your throat and causing some
>> to turn to fraud and theft.
>
> Greed is the evil monster. The government we have now is also evil
> because it doesn't do enough to stop the greed.
You are a simpleton. Some people give away all their money, should we
stop that too? After all, for every one giving, some greedy bastard is
taking.
STOP SEXUAL GREED!
--
Jerry Okamura
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:03:39 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:m3eai55tj3v9qqccf...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:40:18 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>yes, they can "crack down", but they cannot stop people from doing what
>>>>they
>>>>want to do.
>>>
>>> We can't stop all murders but we should outlaw it. We should also
>>> outlaw greed. And we can stop a great deal of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> A government that rips you off should be abolished and replaced by a
>>>>> government that is on your side.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nice words, but how do you do that.
>>>
>>> You support a good political party. A good party would necessarily be
>>> hated by the government and the media and all their minions.
>>>
>>Those who are democrats or republicans believe that they are doing exactly
>>that, or they would not be democrats or republicans.
>
> They may believe they are doing good, but they are wrong. Nothing
> good comes from democrats or republicans.
>
Topaz
<PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>Greed is NOT illegal,
It should be.
> if you want it illegal then pass the law, that
>wanting to be wealthy is illegal.
No thanks. I want to outlaw greed.
>Why is being financial freedom
> any
>worse than being sexual freedom?
We should outlaw homosexual perversion too.
>You are a simpleton.
Pull your head out of your aft end and look at the facts:
http://news.com.com/2100-1011_3-133261.html?tag=st_rn
More and more tech jobs head overseas
Last modified: December 24, 2003, 6:59 AM PST
By Reuters
U.S. corporations are picking up the pace in shifting well-paid
technology jobs to India, China and other low-cost centers, but they
are keeping quiet for fear of a backlash, industry professionals said.
Morgan Stanley estimates the number of U.S. jobs outsourced to India
will double to about 150,000 in the next three years. Analysts predict
as many as 2 million U.S. white-collar jobs such as those filled by
programmers, software engineers and applications designers will shift
to low- cost centers by 2014.
But the biggest companies looking to "offshoring" to cut costs, such
as Microsoft, IBM and AT&T Wireless, are reluctant to attract
attention for political reasons, observers said this week.
"The problem is that companies aren't sure if it's politically correct
to talk about it," said Jack Trout, a principal of Trout & Partners, a
marketing and strategy firm. "Nobody has come up with a way to spin it
in a positive way."
This causes a problem for publicly traded companies, which would
ordinarily brag about cost savings to investors. Instead, they send
vague signals that they are opening up operations in India and China,
but often decline to elaborate.
Moreover, on the threshold of a U.S. presidential election year, job
losses are a hot-button issue. A company that highlighted a major job
transfer could wind up in the campaign debate.
Multinationals find that when they trumpet expansion overseas, they
cause problems at home. When Accenture executives in India this month
announced plans to double their staff to 10,000 next year, they
triggered a flood of calls to the company's U.S. offices about U.S.
job losses.
Offshoring companies "are paying Chinese wages and selling at U.S.
prices," said Alan Tonelson, of the U.S. Business and Industrial
Council, a trade group for small business. "They're not creating
better living standards for America."...
> Some people give away all their money, should we
>stop that too?
No
>After all, for every one giving, some greedy bastard is
>taking.
http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
Topaz
The game is rigged and we need to change the rules.
Michael Price
wrote:
> On Dec 9, 10:43 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
>
> > >> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> *The Failure isn't capitalism* the *failure is Harvard Business school*
> > >>> and Economics and other educations... the people regulating things in
> > >>> government and the people from Harvard Business school were heavily
> > >>> weighted in the collapsed BIG businesses and government. Harvard is
> > >>> teaching too much Socialism to the students it churns out. Look at
> > >>> Socialist Obama and his plans from Harvard, he says he was seeking out
> > >>> *the-Marxist-Professors* and sure enough Obama hasn't got a clue about
> > >>> creating even one job.
> > >>> *The root of our problems* are the people we have in charge of the
> > >>> system, NOT the system. The system has worked for over 200 years and no
> > >>> other Nation was even a close second to the USA.
> > >> The root of the problem is greed. You cannot have an economic system
> > >> that rewards nothing but greed, and that's what capitalism is.
>
> > > probably more rewarded in socialist systems since they remove the
> > > incentive not to be greedy because nobody pays for their own stuff.
>
> > Communism/Marxism/Socialism rewards corruption.... Obama looks to be
> > very corrupt.
>
> As does Capitalism look at the latest Bank Failure.
No, State Capitalism a.k.a. Crony Capitalism a.k.a. Fascism looks
very corrupt.
>
> > >> The root of the problem is people who care about nothing but money.
>
Michael Price
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:09:52 -0500, Poetic Justice
>
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
> >Greed is NOT illegal,
>
> It should be.
>
> > if you want it illegal then pass the law, that
> >wanting to be wealthy is illegal.
>
> No thanks. I want to outlaw greed.
Which is wanting to be wealthy.
>
> >Why is being financial freedom
> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people.
What does that mean exactly? Capitalism doesn't put a value on
anything, people do. Capitalism is only a method to transmit
information on what people value. It has no values of it's own,
and that's good. If "the system" has values seperate from the values
of the people in it then the their values are inherently degraded
and diminished. That is truely not putting value (special or
otherwise) on people.
> Capitalism is based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that
> made potato chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y
> amount of salt, and Z number of human beings for labor. The human
> beings have no more value than the potatoes or the salt.
They have no more value for the company. They have value for and
to each other and their loved ones. I don't know about you but I
don't
feel that Smith's Crisps not loving me is all that terrible.
> And they consider it good to pay they humans as little as they
> possibly can to increase their profits.
And I consider it good to pay the company as little as possible for
it's chips. If they don't like it they can sell their chips or their
labour to someone else. That is because they and I have values and
are free to pursue them.
> According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
> will work for the least pennies per hour.
No they can compete on that basis but most people compete to be
more valuable to their employer.
> They say everyone must compete with the people in Mexico and China
> to see who will work for the fewest pennies.
And what is the alternative? That the people in Mexico and China
not be allowed to compete with us? What do they eat while they are
forbidden this right?
> If a company makes billions in profit while paying
> its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine.
Capitalism has saved more people from starvation than any other
system.
> At least the sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated.
> If the people die of starvation that is fine too.
And when did that happen in a capitalistic society?
> You can always get more people. If there is not enough work for
> everyone to do then they think people need to die off.
Which never happens. There is always more to do in a capitalist
society because there is always new things to invest in.
> Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
> the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
Well let's see, he traded corn at the lowest price that anyone
could find, helping the poor. He reinvested his money in the business
continually, raising productivity and thus demand for labour, helping
the poor. He gave a job to one who couldn't get one elsewhere,
helping,
who was it again? oh yes, the poor. He didn't waste his money on
frivolous expensive things, which would have diverted capital and
labour
from producing things neccesary and cheap. This makes things
neccesary
and cheap even cheaper. Who buys those things, mostly the poor.
> The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
> people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
> Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
> start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
Well would you invest ten billion dollars, which no certainty of
it's return for a profit of a 999 million ten years down the line?
That's
a return of 0.9567404% annualised.
> What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
> share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
Yes. Because the people holding the power to define "reasonable"
who have control effectively over all industrial capacity.
> Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
> people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
> when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue?
Enough. Throughout history people have used their wealth to pay for
charity, both to boost their ego and because they dislike people being
poor. When the government takes over poverty this declines rapidly.
> If there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
> everything while most people would not pay one thin dime.
Where's you evidence for this? Most people are charitable.
> We have welfare so people all pay their fair share.
No we have welfare so that people all pay a share they do not
see as fair. If they saw it as fair they'd pay it anyway.
> It is part of having civilization.
Defined as killing people with darker skin and flatter noses than
you.
> We have many laws that make things better for people.
> There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
> hours.
And how does that make it better for me? Suppose I want to
work over 40 hours a week and my employer doesn't think it's
worth the higher rate? How is forbidding me to make a trade
a benefit?
> There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
No there aren't.
> Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
> to be as greedy as possible. There are laws that keep people from
> getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Actually prohibition of fraud is one of the central neccesities for
capitalism.
> Capitalism is bad for people.
And Nazism is good?
> > any worse than being sexual freedom?
>
> We should outlaw homosexual perversion too.
>
> >You are a simpleton.
>
> Pull your head out of your aft end and look at the facts:
>
> http://news.com.com/2100-1011_3-133261.html?tag=st_rn
> More and more tech jobs head overseas
> Last modified: December 24, 2003, 6:59 AM PST
> By Reuters
>
> U.S. corporations are picking up the pace in shifting well-paid
> technology jobs to India, China and other low-cost centers, but they
> are keeping quiet for fear of a backlash, industry professionals said.
> Morgan Stanley estimates the number of U.S. jobs outsourced to India
> will double to about 150,000 in the next three years. Analysts predict
> as many as 2 million U.S. white-collar jobs such as those filled by
> programmers, software engineers and applications designers will shift
> to low- cost centers by 2014.
And governments that crush the free market in America had nothing to
do with this? You have a tenuous grasp on the facts.
> But the biggest companies looking to "offshoring" to cut costs, such
> as Microsoft, IBM and AT&T Wireless, are reluctant to attract
> attention for political reasons, observers said this week.
> "The problem is that companies aren't sure if it's politically correct
> to talk about it," said Jack Trout, a principal of Trout & Partners, a
> marketing and strategy firm. "Nobody has come up with a way to spin it
> in a positive way."
> This causes a problem for publicly traded companies, which would
> ordinarily brag about cost savings to investors. Instead, they send
> vague signals that they are opening up operations in India and China,
> but often decline to elaborate.
> Moreover, on the threshold of a U.S. presidential election year, job
> losses are a hot-button issue. A company that highlighted a major job
> transfer could wind up in the campaign debate.
> Multinationals find that when they trumpet expansion overseas, they
> cause problems at home. When Accenture executives in India this month
> announced plans to double their staff to 10,000 next year, they
> triggered a flood of calls to the company's U.S. offices about U.S.
> job losses.
> Offshoring companies "are paying Chinese wages and selling at U.S.
> prices," said Alan Tonelson, of the U.S. Business and Industrial
> Council, a trade group for small business. "They're not creating
> better living standards for America."...
>
Actually cheaper goods do create better living standards for
America. Governments don't.
Michael Price
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:03:39 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>
>
>
>
> >"Topaz" <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:m3eai55tj3v9qqccf...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:40:18 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> >> <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>>yes, they can "crack down", but they cannot stop people from doing what
> >>>they
> >>>want to do.
>
> >> We can't stop all murders but we should outlaw it. We should also
> >> outlaw greed. And we can stop a great deal of it.
>
> >>>> A government that rips you off should be abolished and replaced by a
> >>>> government that is on your side.
>
> >>>Nice words, but how do you do that.
>
> >> You support a good political party. A good party would necessarily be
> >> hated by the government and the media and all their minions.
>
> >Those who are democrats or republicans believe that they are doing exactly
> >that, or they would not be democrats or republicans.
>
> They may believe they are doing good, but they are wrong. Nothing
> good comes from democrats or republicans.
So then why should we support anyone who says they're a good
political party? Especially people like you who can't even describe
what "good" is and why.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Which is why the constitution doesn't allow for Government to be in
business and Freddie and Fannie are as unconstitutional as GM is.
This push of Government into private business is Unconstitutional and
Dangerous to FREEDOM.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Our constitution protects criminals, sexual deviants and U.S.
Senators.... which at times are, one and the same.
Jerry Okamura
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:07:53 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> They may believe they are doing good, but they are wrong. Nothing
>>> good comes from democrats or republicans.
>>>
>>Does it really matter, they are the only game in town.
>
> The game is rigged and we need to change the rules.
>
Jerry Okamura
"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54de7ec7-487f-4aa3...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
That is the sixty four thousand dollar question. Why should any of us
totally support one party or the other? As for the word "good", it comes
from my asian background, since asians don't believe in concepts like good
or bad, black and white.
Jerry Okamura
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:09:52 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>>Greed is NOT illegal,
>
> It should be.
What law would you pass to outlaw greed? How can you outlaw greed? What
greed are you referring to? People who ask and receive a government handout
are also greedy, since they did not work to earn that benefit, did theh?
>
>> if you want it illegal then pass the law, that
>>wanting to be wealthy is illegal.
>
> No thanks. I want to outlaw greed.
How can out "outlaw" something without passing a law to make it illegal?
>
>>Why is being financial freedom
>
>
> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
> based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
> chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
> and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
> value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
> the humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
You got it backwards. Capitalism does best when people are free. The more
freedom people have the more successful Capitalism will be. Communism
cannot survive if people place their freedom and independence, ahead of
their safety.
Michael Coburn
Good (as the term applies to relationships among sentient creatures) is
what the vast universal majority of sentient beings _SAYS_ it is. There
is no other rational definition that applies in a social context. And in
an individual context the word means "personal opinion or taste".
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Topaz
<nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Greed is NOT illegal,
>>
>> It should be.
>>
> And how exactly is thoughtcrime to be prosecuted in your utopia?
Thoughtcrime would not be prosecuted. We should outlaw greed.
Companies that lay off Americans to get cheaper workers and China and
Mexico should not be allowed to sell their good here.
>>
>> �No thanks. I want to outlaw greed.
>
> Which is wanting to be wealthy.
Companies that lay off Americans to get cheaper workers and China and
Mexico should not be allowed to sell their good here.
> What does that mean exactly? Capitalism doesn't put a value on
>anything, people do. Capitalism is only a method to transmit
>information on what people value.
Capitalism does nothing to stop greed. It results in the few very rich
and the many very poor.
> It has no values of it's own,
>and that's good.
Since it has no values, it should be scrapped.
> If "the system" has values seperate from the values
>of the people in it then the their values are inherently degraded
>and diminished. That is truely not putting value (special or
>otherwise) on people.
>
>> Capitalism is based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that
>> made potato chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y
>> amount of salt, and Z number of human beings for labor. The human
>> beings have no more value than the potatoes or the salt.
>
> They have no more value for the company. They have value for and
>to each other and their loved ones. I don't know about you but I
>don't
>feel that Smith's Crisps not loving me is all that terrible.
>
>> And they consider it good to pay they humans as little as they
>> possibly can to increase their profits.
>
> And I consider it good to pay the company as little as possible for
>it's chips. If they don't like it they can sell their chips or their
>labour to someone else. That is because they and I have values and
>are free to pursue them.
Capitalism does nothing to stop greed. It results in the few very rich
and the many very poor.
>
>> According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
>> will work for the least pennies per hour.
>
> No they can compete on that basis but most people compete to be
>more valuable to their employer.
>
>> They say everyone must compete with the people in Mexico and China
>> to see who will work for the fewest pennies.
>
> And what is the alternative?
> That the people in Mexico and China
>not be allowed to compete with us? What do they eat while they are
>forbidden this right?
They should uplift their county and people as best they can. We should
not go down to their level as capitalism is doing.
>
>> If a company makes billions in profit while paying
>> its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine.
>
> Capitalism has saved more people from starvation than any other
>system.
Capitalism does nothing to stop greed. It results in the few very rich
and the many very poor.
>
>> At least the sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated.
>> If the people die of starvation that is fine too.
>
> And when did that happen in a capitalistic society?
For example "Tiny Tim" in the Scrooge story illustrates Capitalism.
>
>> You can always get more people. If there is not enough work for
>> everyone to do then they think people need to die off.
>
> Which never happens. There is always more to do in a capitalist
>society because there is always new things to invest in.
So capitalist theory claims there will be no unemployment. We should
have a system that works, not one that worships nonsensical theories.
>
>> Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
>> the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
>
> Well let's see, he traded corn at the lowest price that anyone
>could find, helping the poor. He reinvested his money in the business
>continually, raising productivity and thus demand for labour, helping
>the poor. He gave a job to one who couldn't get one elsewhere,
>helping,
>who was it again? oh yes, the poor. He didn't waste his money on
>frivolous expensive things, which would have diverted capital and
>labour
>from producing things neccesary and cheap. This makes things
>neccesary
>and cheap even cheaper. Who buys those things, mostly the poor.
Capitalism does nothing to stop greed. It results in the few very rich
and the many very poor.
>
>> The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
>> people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
>> Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
>> start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
>
> Well would you invest ten billion dollars, which no certainty of
>it's return for a profit of a 999 million ten years down the line?
>That's
>a return of 0.9567404% annualised.
Investors are parasites. Only worthwhile people should profit.
>
>> What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
>> share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
>
> Yes. Because the people holding the power to define "reasonable"
>who have control effectively over all industrial capacity.
>
>> Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
>> people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
>> when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue?
>
> Enough. Throughout history people have used their wealth to pay for
>charity, both to boost their ego and because they dislike people being
>poor. When the government takes over poverty this declines rapidly.
We should all pay our fair share for the poor.
For one thing the head of the Red Cross earns a $651,957.
>
>> If there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
>> everything while most people would not pay one thin dime.
>
> Where's you evidence for this? Most people are charitable.
What if they are not? We should all pay our fair share.
>
>> We have welfare so people all pay their fair share.
>
> No we have welfare so that people all pay a share they do not
>see as fair. If they saw it as fair they'd pay it anyway.
You pretend that if welfare was fair you would pay your share. It
should be made fair and people on welfare should be made to work. But
you are still not for it right? What is your next excuse.
>
>> It is part of having civilization.
>
> Defined as killing people with darker skin and flatter noses than
>you.
We should have a nation for White people. Other groups should have
their nations.
>
>> We have many laws that make things better for people.
>> There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
>> hours.
>
> And how does that make it better for me? Suppose I want to
>work over 40 hours a week and my employer doesn't think it's
>worth the higher rate? How is forbidding me to make a trade
>a benefit?
People were oppresed in Dickensinian England. Capitalism wants to go
back in the wrong direction.
>
>> There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
>
> No there aren't.
Then there should be.
>
>> Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
>> to be as greedy as possible. There are laws that keep people from
>> getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
>
> Actually prohibition of fraud is one of the central neccesities for
>capitalism.
>
>> Capitalism is bad for people.
>
> And Nazism is good?
By Walter Ruthard
I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
free newly built house from the government.
This was but one of the many programs the government established in
order to improve the quality of life for its citizens..
Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
time in rural settings together with their children..
Another very popular social program of the government was "Kraft
durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
for this purpose. On these ships there was only one class and
everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
in and English port however. The reason was that the British
government did not want it's citizens to see what it also could have
done for them..
The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
"Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe.. The
Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
other interpretation is plain hogwash..
My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
village..
Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
wasn't nailed down..
It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
plebiscite.
There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
slave laborer.
Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
they are 35..
Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
comprehensive animal protection law. Farm animals had to be kept in
strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
slaughter.
If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers.. In
national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
in other European countries.
And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
punished by such degrading means.
That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.
>>
>> U.S. corporations are picking up the pace in shifting well-paid
>> technology jobs to India, China and other low-cost centers, but they
>> are keeping quiet for fear of a backlash, industry professionals said.
>> Morgan Stanley estimates the number of U.S. jobs outsourced to India
>> will double to about 150,000 in the next three years. Analysts predict
>> as many as 2 million U.S. white-collar jobs such as those filled by
>> programmers, software engineers and applications designers will shift
>> to low- cost centers by 2014.
>
> And governments that crush the free market in America had nothing to
>do with this? You have a tenuous grasp on the facts.
The government did nothing to stop it, and is therefore guilty of
being too capitalist.
No, it does not balance out. Capitalist theory is a crock. Losing your
job does not balance out having cheap goods. Capitalism would bring us
down to the level of Mexico, with only a few rich people having all
the billions.
Topaz
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>What law would you pass to outlaw greed?
Besides stop companies from laying off Americans to get cheaper
workers in Mexico and China, here is another:
JP Morgan said that a business leader should not be allowed to make
more than 20 times the average wage of his non executive workers. This
shares the wealth. A business leader may be forced to pay his workers
more, while at the same time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for
business leaders to start new businesses.
> How can you outlaw greed?
See above
> What
>greed are you referring to? People who ask and receive a government handout
>are also greedy, since they did not work to earn that benefit, did theh?
No, there are not greedy. But we should make them work to get the
welfare.
>
>How can out "outlaw" something without passing a law to make it illegal?
You can't
>You got it backwards. Capitalism does best when people are free. The more
>freedom people have the more successful Capitalism will be.
Capitalism does nothing to stop greed. It results in the few very rich
and the many very poor.
> Communism
>cannot survive if people place their freedom and independence, ahead of
>their safety.
Communism was an enemy plot from the beginning. It was never supposed
to help people. But they were correct that capitalism is also bad.
Topaz
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:i3dgi5p9jt1bbnkg5...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:07:53 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> They may believe they are doing good, but they are wrong. Nothing
>>>> good comes from democrats or republicans.
>>>>
>>>Does it really matter, they are the only game in town.
>>
>> The game is rigged and we need to change the rules.
>>
>You mean you can try to change the rules don't you?
The only hope is for a party to come to power in spite of being
totally hated and condemned by the media. But the money bags don't
control the internet.
Poetic Justice
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:39:30 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> What law would you pass to outlaw greed?
>
> Besides stop companies from laying off Americans to get cheaper
> workers in Mexico and China, here is another:
They do this to make money.... all you need to do is cut the
"governments take" when the corporations hire *American Citizens* in
America. The government can't control everything but they can control
the *GOVERNMENT GREED*
> JP Morgan said that a business leader should not be allowed to make
> more than 20 times the average wage of his non executive workers. This
> shares the wealth. A business leader may be forced to pay his workers
That is the choice of the business... why don't you demand that they put
that in their corporate charter. Quit buying their products and refuse
to work for them until they do.
> more, while at the same time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for
> business leaders to start new businesses.
You don't need laws for a "social gripe"
Topaz
<PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>> Besides stop companies from laying off Americans to get cheaper
>> workers in Mexico and China, here is another:
>
>They do this to make money.... all you need to do is cut the
>"governments take" when the corporations hire *American Citizens* in
>America. The government can't control everything but they can control
>the *GOVERNMENT GREED*
We need taxes for a lot of good things. But yes, there are a lot of
things we need to get rid of. Here is a main one:
By Jim Taylor
I believe I can, in one fell swoop prove that we have the
dumbest country on earth. All I need to do is mention that since 1948,
Americans have given Israel over 15 million dollars a day from your
salaries, paychecks and various earnings. No other nation on this
earth is dumb enough to do that not even the African ones. And to make
it worse you people do it gladly and with joy in your hearts. No one
complains, except me. Everyone else seems to think it is all right for
every American citizen to be robbed in this manner every day of their
lives with no end in sight. Can any nation be dumber that this? Most
Americans are so enslaved via Zionist propaganda and government
pronouncements that they think we owe this money so the Israelis can
live a much better life than in the good old USA. They have luxuries
you cannot afford. They take vacations all over the world which
Americans on average cannot afford. And when they do this they always
America and criticize you people who are the very ones who provide
them with these opportunities. I say you cannot get dumber than that.
The Israelis buy expensive things with YOUR money and then make fun of
you for being this dumb.
The worst part about this involuntary servitude is that the cruel
and criminal Israelis use YOUR money for arms to murder Arabs on a
daily basis, and sometimes they also kill Americans with your money.
So every American taxpayer is guilty of murder because under the law
anyone who pays someone to commit murder is equally guilty.
If the Arabs are so stupid and inefficient as the Zionists tell us,
how was it when the Palestinians ran Palestine they never needed help
from the U.S. or anyone else. The ran that state very well without a
cent of assistance from any other place.
>
>> JP Morgan said that a business leader should not be allowed to make
>> more than 20 times the average wage of his non executive workers. This
>> shares the wealth. A business leader may be forced to pay his workers
>
>That is the choice of the business... why don't you demand that they put
>that in their corporate charter.
The only time we demand something is when we make a law, and that is
what we should do.
> Quit buying their products and refuse
>to work for them until they do.
No, that isn't going to cut the mustard.
>
>> more, while at the same time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for
>> business leaders to start new businesses.
>
>You don't need laws for a "social gripe"
We need laws to stop greed.
Poetic Justice
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:32:57 -0800 (PST), Michael Price
> <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Greed is NOT illegal,
>>>
>>> It should be.
>>>
>> And how exactly is thoughtcrime to be prosecuted in your utopia?
>
> Thoughtcrime would not be prosecuted. We should outlaw greed.
What forms of greed.... people that are greedy and collect more
Baseball cards than the rest of us?
Greedy People that collect food?
Greedy People that collect guns?
Greedy People that collect gold coins?
Greedy People that collect Maserati's?
Greedy People that collect 1973 Pinto's?
Greedy People that collect bottle caps?
Greedy people that collect pictures of famous people?
Greedy People that collect wines?
Or only greedy people that collect dollars?
--
Michael Price
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:32:57 -0800 (PST), Michael Price
>
> >> >Greed is NOT illegal,
>
> >> It should be.
>
> > And how exactly is thoughtcrime to be prosecuted in your utopia?
>
> Thoughtcrime would not be prosecuted. We should outlaw greed.
And greed is a particular kind of thought, so you're proposing
thoughtcrime
laws.
> Companies that lay off Americans to get cheaper workers and China and
> Mexico should not be allowed to sell their good here.
>
Then why should American companies that hire Americans instead of
Chinese
be allowed to sell in China? Or are you just against productive trade
on principle.
>
> >> No thanks. I want to outlaw greed.
>
> > Which is wanting to be wealthy .
<snip irrelevance>
> > What does that mean exactly? Capitalism doesn't put a value on
> >anything, people do. Capitalism is only a method to transmit
> >information on what people value.
>
> Capitalism does nothing to stop greed. It results in the few very rich
> and the many very poor.
>
Well no, it results in very few poor and mostly middle class.
Fascism
on the other hand...
> > It has no values of it's own, and that's good.
>
> Since it has no values, it should be scrapped.
>
Your heart muscle has no values, should we cut that out and throw it
away?
> > If "the system" has values seperate from the values
> >of the people in it then the their values are inherently degraded
> >and diminished. That is truely not putting value (special or
> >otherwise) on people.
>
> >> Capitalism is based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that
> >> made potato chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y
> >> amount of salt, and Z number of human beings for labor. The human
> >> beings have no more value than the potatoes or the salt.
>
> > They have no more value for the company. They have value for and
> >to each other and their loved ones. I don't know about you but I
> >don't
> >feel that Smith's Crisps not loving me is all that terrible.
>
> >> And they consider it good to pay they humans as little as they
> >> possibly can to increase their profits.
>
> > And I consider it good to pay the company as little as possible for
> >it's chips. If they don't like it they can sell their chips or their
> >labour to someone else. That is because they and I have values and
> >are free to pursue them.
>
> Capitalism does nothing to stop greed. It results in the few very rich
> and the many very poor.
>
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
>
> >> According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
> >> will work for the least pennies per hour.
>
> > No they can compete on that basis but most people compete to be
> >more valuable to their employer.
>
> >> They say everyone must compete with the people in Mexico and China
> >> to see who will work for the fewest pennies.
>
> > And what is the alternative?
> > That the people in Mexico and China
> >not be allowed to compete with us? What do they eat while they are
> >forbidden this right?
>
> They should uplift their county and people as best they can.
They do by trading with us.
> We should not go down to their level as capitalism is doing.
>
What makes you think you could ever reach as high as the
level of an honest man trading honestly? Why should I be forced
to buy stuff that isn't cheap or good because you can't compete
with people you call your inferiors?
>
> >> If a company makes billions in profit while paying
> >> its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine.
>
> > Capitalism has saved more people from starvation than any other
> >system.
>
> Capitalism does nothing to stop greed. It results in the few very rich
> and the many very poor.
>
Since you didn't refute my point I take it you accept it.
>
> >> At least the sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated.
> >> If the people die of starvation that is fine too.
>
> > And when did that happen in a capitalistic society?
>
> For example "Tiny Tim" in the Scrooge story illustrates Capitalism.
>
That's a story moron. I suppose you get real scared watching "24"
in
case the terrorists win. In any case Scrooge did more good for more
people than any other person in that story as you know. And I know
you
know because I've told you before.
>
> >> You can always get more people. If there is not enough work for
> >> everyone to do then they think people need to die off.
>
> > Which never happens. There is always more to do in a capitalist
> >society because there is always new things to invest in.
>
> So capitalist theory claims there will be no unemployment.
No, if the labour market is allowed to clear (which we all know
government
will never allow) there will only be unemployment resulting from
people searching
for better jobs than they could get the instant they leave their old
job.
> We should have a system that works, not one that worships nonsensical theories.
>
Your system has never worked.
>
> >> Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
> >> the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
>
> > Well let's see, he traded corn at the lowest price that anyone
> > could find, helping the poor. He reinvested his money in the business
> > continually, raising productivity and thus demand for labour, helping
> > the poor. He gave a job to one who couldn't get one elsewhere,
> > helping, who was it again? oh yes, the poor. He didn't waste his money on
> > frivolous expensive things, which would have diverted capital and
> > labour from producing things neccesary and cheap. This makes things
> > neccesary and cheap even cheaper. Who buys those things, mostly the
> > poor.
>
> Capitalism does nothing to stop greed.
Yep and right above I've shown why that is a good thing.
> >> The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
> >> people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
> >> Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
> >> start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
>
> > Well would you invest ten billion dollars, which no certainty of
> > it's return for a profit of a 999 million ten years down the line?
> > That's a return of 0.9567404% annualised.
>
> Investors are parasites.
I see so I guess you could build a profitable business employing
say,
10,000 people without them? Because if they're parasites this would
be easier than building it with them and lots of people do that.
> Only worthwhile people should profit.
>
So I guess that's you in the poorhouse since you can't even answer
a
simple question, would you take a 0.957% average annual return on your
money?
> >> Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
> >> people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
> >> when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue?
>
> > Enough. Throughout history people have used their wealth to pay for
> > charity, both to boost their ego and because they dislike people being
> > poor. When the government takes over poverty this declines rapidly.
>
> We should all pay our fair share for the poor.
Great, so if it's a fair share it won't be extracted by unfair
means, like force.
>
> For one thing the head of the Red Cross earns a $651,957.
>
And?
>
> >> If there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
> >> everything while most people would not pay one thin dime.
>
> > Where's you evidence for this? Most people are charitable.
>
> What if they are not? We should all pay our fair share.
>
But they are. Repeating self-evident but meaningless claims is not
helpful.
>
> >> We have welfare so people all pay their fair share.
>
> > No we have welfare so that people all pay a share they do not
> >see as fair. If they saw it as fair they'd pay it anyway.
>
> You pretend that if welfare was fair you would pay your share.
And you know me well enough to know it's not true?
> It should be made fair and people on welfare should be made to work. But
> you are still not for it right? What is your next excuse.
>
I'm not for it because it's theft. Sorry thief but that's the
facts.
>
> >> It is part of having civilization.
>
> > Defined as killing people with darker skin and flatter noses than
> >you.
>
> We should have a nation for White people. Other groups should have
> their nations.
>
I note no denial.
>
> >> We have many laws that make things better for people.
> >> There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
> >> hours.
>
> > And how does that make it better for me? Suppose I want to
> >work over 40 hours a week and my employer doesn't think it's
> >worth the higher rate? How is forbidding me to make a trade
> >a benefit?
>
> People were oppresed in Dickensinian England.
Another claim without evidence. Dickensian England did have
oppression, by government agencies like the poor house and
orphanage. The market on the other hand was setting people
free.
> Capitalism wants to go back in the wrong direction.
>
Claim without evidence or even meaning.
>
> >> There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
>
> > No there aren't.
>
> Then there should be.
>
No there shouldn't be, if people want a retirement let them save for
it.
They have decades to solve a problem yet they want to solve it by
force
at the last minute.
>
> >> Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
> >> to be as greedy as possible. There are laws that keep people from
> >> getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
>
> > Actually prohibition of fraud is one of the central neccesities for
> >capitalism.
>
> >> Capitalism is bad for people.
>
> > And Nazism is good?
>
<snip blatant propaganda of the least honest sort>
> >> U.S. corporations are picking up the pace in shifting well-paid
> >> technology jobs to India, China and other low-cost centers, but they
> >> are keeping quiet for fear of a backlash, industry professionals said.
> >> Morgan Stanley estimates the number of U.S. jobs outsourced to India
> >> will double to about 150,000 in the next three years. Analysts predict
> >> as many as 2 million U.S. white-collar jobs such as those filled by
> >> programmers, software engineers and applications designers will shift
> >> to low- cost centers by 2014.
>
> > And governments that crush the free market in America had nothing to
> >do with this? You have a tenuous grasp on the facts.
>
> The government did nothing to stop it, and is therefore guilty of
> being too capitalist.
>
A government that controls the interest rate, has environment and
financial
regulations that are literally impossible to read before they change
and spends
over 30% of the money is too capitalist? Yeah and Hitler was too
humanitarian.
Then logically you should be able to keep your job by working for a
low
enough wage that you can produce goods just as cheaply. If you don't
then clearly you value the goods more than your job. In any case
allowing
outsourcing didn't destroy American jobs, lack of productivity did and
the
government caused that.
> Capitalism would bring us down to the level of Mexico, with only a few
> rich people having all the billions.
Mexico has been profoundly anti-Capitalist for, well forever
really. Nice
try moron but you know less economic theory than a rock.
Michael Price
But the vast majority of sentient creatures says that this is not
the
case, so if they can define the truth of moral statements then your
statement is not true. If they can't then it's not true either.
> There is no other rational definition that applies in a social context.
Of course there is and Stefan Molyneux worked it out in "Universally
Preferable Behaviour" available free from www.freedomainradio.com.
Michael Price
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:39:30 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>
>
> >What law would you pass to outlaw greed?
>
> Besides stop companies from laying off Americans
>
That doesn't outlaw greed, in fact it benefits the greed of the
American workers who want to work for more than their
labor is worth while sticking it to the American consumer.
> JP Morgan said that a business leader should not be
> allowed to make more than 20 times the average wage
> of his non executive workers.
No he didn't he limited the pay of some of his own
executives. He earned a LOT more than that so
presumably he only had a problem with paying, not
recieving said amount. In any case the idea is moronic.
Why should someone get more because they fired
cheap unskilled workers? Or because they outsourced
them? If your skills aren't worth 20 times the lowest
paid worker then you won't get paid more, if they are
why should everyone else get a discount on you?
> This shares the wealth. A business leader may be
> forced to pay his workers more,
Do you mean an executive or an investor? Big difference.
Good luck getting investors with such a restriction. Say
hello to the guys on the breadlines you create.
> while at the same time this idea keeps plenty of
> incentives for business leaders to start new businesses.
>
Already shown (at least twice) why this is bullshit.
> > How can you outlaw greed?
>
> See above
>
Lie.
> > What greed are you referring to? People who
> > ask and receive a government handout
> > are also greedy, since they did not work to earn
> > that benefit, did theh?
>
> No, there are not greedy.
They want money they didn't get in honest trade.
> But we should make them work to get the welfare.
>
Doesn't make it an honest trade.
>
> > How can out "outlaw" something without passing
> > a law to make it illegal?
>
> You can't
>
Topaz doesn't get it.
> > You got it backwards. Capitalism does best
> > when people are free. The more freedom people
> > have the more successful Capitalism will be.
>
<snip>
Topaz please try to write something original or honest.
Michael Price
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:20:16 -0500, Poetic Justice
>
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
> >> Besides stop companies from laying off Americans to get cheaper
> >> workers in Mexico and China, here is another:
>
> >They do this to make money.... all you need to do is cut the
> >"governments take" when the corporations hire *American Citizens* in
> >America. The government can't control everything but they can control
> >the *GOVERNMENT GREED*
>
> We need taxes for a lot of good things.
No we don't. I can't think of one good thing that comes
from taxes that we couldn't get cheaper without it. That
includes roads, hospitals, education and the usual
suspects.
> But yes, there
> are a lot of things we need to get rid of. Here is a main one:
>
> By Jim Taylor
<snip rant about aid to Israel, mostly accurate>
So why not lose the taxes to support that before we
use guns to help the greedy American worker.
>
> >> JP Morgan said that a business leader should not be allowed to make
> >> more than 20 times the average wage of his non executive workers. This
> >> shares the wealth. A business leader may be forced to pay his workers
>
> >That is the choice of the business... why don't you demand that they put
> >that in their corporate charter.
>
> The only time we demand something is when we make
> a law, and that is what we should do.
>
Yep, the guns they only solution for Rockhead.
> > Quit buying their products and refuse
> >to work for them until they do.
>
> No, that isn't going to cut the mustard.
>
Then obviously we're not that fussed about the problem.
>
> >> more, while at the same time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for
> >> business leaders to start new businesses.
>
> >You don't need laws for a "social gripe"
>
> We need laws to stop greed.
Yet you've not shown any way they can work. Indeed
the laws you propose serve greed.
Michael Coburn
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> There is no other rational definition that applies in a social context.
>
> Of course there is and Stefan Molyneux worked it out in "Universally
> Preferable Behaviour" available free from www.freedomainradio.com.
So this person is GOD????
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Michael Price
reasoning but prefer
not to admit it.
> >> There is no other rational definition that applies in a social context.
>
> > Of course there is and Stefan Molyneux worked it out in "Universally
> > Preferable Behaviour" available free fromwww.freedomainradio.com.
>
> So this person is GOD????
No he's simply right about the rational definition of right and
wrong, AFAICS. There might
be a flaw in his theory but I can't see it. I never said he was
anything like God.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Imitating a hyena isn't all that convincing.
Jerry Okamura
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:20:03 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:i3dgi5p9jt1bbnkg5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:07:53 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They may believe they are doing good, but they are wrong. Nothing
>>>>> good comes from democrats or republicans.
>>>>>
>>>>Does it really matter, they are the only game in town.
>>>
>>> The game is rigged and we need to change the rules.
>>>
>>You mean you can try to change the rules don't you?
>
> The only hope is for a party to come to power in spite of being
> totally hated and condemned by the media. But the money bags don't
> control the internet.
>
Jerry Okamura
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:39:30 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>What law would you pass to outlaw greed?
>
> Besides stop companies from laying off Americans to get cheaper
> workers in Mexico and China, here is another:
What law would stop them from doing that?
>
> JP Morgan said that a business leader should not be allowed to make
> more than 20 times the average wage of his non executive workers. This
> shares the wealth. A business leader may be forced to pay his workers
> more, while at the same time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for
> business leaders to start new businesses.
Nice words, but there is no law that prevents them from doing that is there?
>
>> How can you outlaw greed?
>
> See above
How does that outlaw greed?
>
>> What
>>greed are you referring to? People who ask and receive a government
>>handout
>>are also greedy, since they did not work to earn that benefit, did theh?
>
> No, there are not greedy. But we should make them work to get the
> welfare.
Why isn't that greed? And they are not force to work to receive the
benefits are they?
>
>>
>>How can out "outlaw" something without passing a law to make it illegal?
>
> You can't
So, then you original point is not going to happen is it?
>
>
>>You got it backwards. Capitalism does best when people are free. The
>>more
>>freedom people have the more successful Capitalism will be.
>
> Capitalism does nothing to stop greed. It results in the few very rich
> and the many very poor.
That is also true, but it does not change what I said. As for how many
people are rich, the ones who take the risks have a chance to be rich, those
who are not willing to take the chance are not going to be rich. And there
are many more people who took the chance, and still did not end up being
rich. It takes skill, hard work and a little bit of luck to hit the
jackpot. And there is no guaranteee that even if you try you will end up
being rich. That is what freedom is all about. You are free to do what you
do do. You can either take a chance, or you can play it safe.
>
>> Communism
>>cannot survive if people place their freedom and independence, ahead of
>>their safety.
>
> Communism was an enemy plot from the beginning. It was never supposed
> to help people. But they were correct that capitalism is also bad.
>
There is no perfect system.
Day Brown
>> As does Capitalism look at the latest Bank Failure.
>
> No, State Capitalism a.k.a. Crony Capitalism a.k.a. Fascism looks
> very corrupt.
>>>>> The root of the problem is people who care about nothing but money.
>>>> No the root of the problem is people who care about political power,
>>>> they're the ones that control the government and they're the one who
>>>> caused the mess.
that reveal the prefrontal activity needed when calculating deception
which contrasts with the mid brain activity used when recalling real
events. This is going to raise hell with corrupt officials and business
that have always relied on inside deals and information.
Also, wealth is increasingly recorded on computers rather than stacks of
gold in vaults. Which means the transfer can be tracked. As we see in
the Swiss analysis of short sales just prior to 9/11/2001.
You may, as I have, go to http://www.paulekman.com and order his CD on
reading the autonomic muscle response that occurs in the first 200 ms to
a question, which is then over written by the prefrontal lobes trying to
paint the face so it comports with what is said.
You can also, as I have, order Amanita Muscaria online, slather it with
butter (to prevent gastric distress) and share it with others during an
evening. Mescaline, Pscilocybin, LSD, Peyote, and other psychedelics
also interfere with the prefrontal lobe calculations needed for deceit,
but these are illegal.
The psychedelics wont make you crazy, but if you already are, they make
it very obvious, and they expose liars for very similar reasons. Which a
lotta liars instinctively understand. So, you can have a meeting of
minds in which to work out some agenda in full confidence no mole will
not be exposed in the course of negotiations.
The Vedas are famous for spiritual and intellectual and psychological
insight, but also for their famous potion, "Soma". Which is, whatever
else it is, a combination of Amanita Muscaria and yogurt, or some other
animal fat. Of course, the power elites allied with religions like Islam
and Christianity, have tried to suppress entheogenic potions, so the
recipe for Soma was lost. But like so many other truths, rediscovered by
archeology and computer search string tools of ancient texts.
The ultimate result will be a new economic order where we all know just
who is an honest trader, and who is not.
Topaz
<PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>What forms of greed....
For example laying off Americans to get cheaper workers in Mexico and
China.
> people that are greedy and collect more
>Baseball cards than the rest of us?
That isn't greed since it doesn't promote yourself at the expense of
others.
>
>Greedy People that collect food?
That isn't greed since it doesn't promote yourself at the expense of
others.
>
>Greedy People that collect guns?
That isn't greed since it doesn't promote yourself at the expense of
others.
>
>Greedy People that collect gold coins?
That isn't greed since it doesn't promote yourself at the expense of
others.
>
>Greedy People that collect Maserati's?
probably not
>
>Greedy People that collect 1973 Pinto's?
That isn't greed since it doesn't promote yourself at the expense of
others.
>
>Greedy People that collect bottle caps?
That isn't greed since it doesn't promote yourself at the expense of
others.
>
>Greedy people that collect pictures of famous people?
That isn't greed since it doesn't promote yourself at the expense of
others.
>
>Greedy People that collect wines?
That isn't greed since it doesn't promote yourself at the expense of
others.
>
>Or only greedy people that collect dollars?
It depends on what they do to get the dollars.
Topaz
<nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And greed is a particular kind of thought, so you're proposing
>thoughtcrime
>laws.
Greed is an action. I will not accept your terms so communication
appears to be impossible.
> Then why should American companies that hire Americans instead of
>Chinese
>be allowed to sell in China?
We should not be telling other nations what to do, But if I were the
Chinese I would not let them.
> Or are you just against productive trade
>on principle.
I am Nationalist on principle. People in our nation vote for our
politicians. Therefore these politicians should do what is best for
our nation.
> Well no, it results in very few poor and mostly middle class.
No, true Capitalism was in Dickenson England, and there was the few
very rich and the many very poor. We have many more labor laws today.
>Fascism
>on the other hand...
Here are some quotes from "The Eleventh Hour" by John Tyndall
"For a short time, Britons from all regions of the country and its
Empire, and from every social background, came together in a single
cause, casting aside all previous political party and class divisions
and joined hands in a common comradeship of the trenches.
And for the first time in centuries politicians in this country put
aside party warfare and joined forces in working for a single goal. A
coalition government was formed in 1916 and proceeded to coordinate
the whole national life in one mighty endeavor. Laissez-faire
Economics were dropped as Britain found that these methods, practiced
so long in the years of peace had rendered her industry hopelessly
incapable of producing her needs of survival in this titanic conflict.
New industries, such as chemicals, machine tools and optics, had to be
built practically from scratch, while others, such as electricity,
aircraft and aero-engines, had to be greatly expanded, in order to
provide the sinews of war; and this was done mainly on the initiative
of the state. By the end of the war, tremendous strides had been made
in making good these previous shortcomings of industry. What the
theoretical stimulus of the "free market" had failed to do for decades
beforehand was done in just three years of corporate effort, achieved
by firm national leadership directing economic resources, and by the
whole nation, and Empire, working as a team."
"Could not the super-human efforts displayed on the battlefield in the
face of a dangerous adversity now be displayed again in the creation,
from out of the rubble of newly born nations?"
"Sir Oswald Mosley... had crossed to the Labour benches after
despairing of the Tories' ability or will to overcome the evils of
poverty and unemployment in post 1918 Britain...
In time, however, Mosley came to recognize that in the ranks of
Labour, however ideal the ends, there was a total incomprehension of,
combined an unwillingness to accept, the necessary means... he said:
"This nation has to be mobilized and rallied for a tremendous effort,
and who can do that except the government of the day?"
In the simplest terms, nationalism is no more than team spirit. Just
as the school, the firm the regiment and the rugby XV need, each in
its own way to be infused with a pride of identity and a desire to
win, so must nations, if they are to be effective forces for the
furtherance of their own interests and for their survival in the
world, be galvanized by the same vital forces."
> Your heart muscle has no values, should we cut that out and throw it
>away?
No, but we should not have a nation run by heart muscles. We should
have a nation run by brains that have values.
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
>> They should uplift their county and people as best they can.
>
> They do by trading with us.
We should not go down to their level. We should not be competing to
see who will work for the fewest pennies.
> What makes you think you could ever reach as high as the
>level of an honest man trading honestly? Why should I be forced
>to buy stuff that isn't cheap or good because you can't compete
>with people you call your inferiors?
We should not be competing to see who will work for the fewest
pennies. We should not have capitalism.
Most people have a gut feeling that Capitalism is materialistic
and therefore there is something bad about it. But it needs to be
explained more clearly.
The first thing to notice is that people are not equal. We all
benefit from a few outstanding people like Edison and the Wright
brothers. We notice this everywhere. For example at an amusement park
thousands of people enjoy the roller coaster but how many have what is
takes to build a good one?
If everyone were equal in business, capitalism might work. The
capitalist theories of supply and demand would involve a lot of people
starting their own business. But as it is, Capitalism results in the
few with useless billions they could never spend and the many
struggling to survive.
The materialistic part of it is that a lot of people want to march
to different drummers. When it is time to go to the beach, who is
superior now, the bodybuilder or the doctor? People may have a passion
for chess or karate or any of thousands of other things that are not
done for money. Capitalism assumes that everyone has to have a passion
for making money.
People should be able to easily get a job and live comfortably on
it and pursue their passions if they march to the beat of a different
drummer. They should get less pay than those who are more useful in
business. But decent hard working citizens in a nation should have
good lives. This is more important than all the hype of how "fair"
Capitalism is and that no one is forced to accept a job.
Of course there is the bad kind of socialism where people don't work
and get money anyway. Who is talking about that nonsense? Everyone has
to work. But we should have a good socialism.
Capitalism is all about theories of supply and demand and boasts
that it that it has no interest in doing anything good for people
otherwise. They may boast that their idea is more macho and
independent. Actually it is more macho to fight the Scrooge types and
put them in their place whether they like it or not. Independence is
great in some ways, but we should be a nation of people who care about
each other. This is what makes things good.
>>
>> > �Capitalism has saved more people from starvation than any other
>> >system.
>>
>> Capitalism does nothing to stop greed. It results in the few very rich
>> and the many very poor.
>>
> Since you didn't refute my point I take it you accept it.
If if did save some people from starvation, we can do better than
that.
> That's a story moron.
It shows Dickensinian England pretty good.
> I suppose you get real scared watching "24"
I don't know what that is.
>in
>case the terrorists win. In any case Scrooge did more good for more
>people than any other person in that story as you know. And I know
>you
>know because I've told you before.
The more times the better. People should see how you think.
> No, if the labour market is allowed to clear (which we all know
>government
>will never allow) there will only be unemployment resulting from
>people searching
>for better jobs than they could get the instant they leave their old
>job.
Capitalism results in all the jobs going to Mexico and China.
> Your system has never worked.
False, and the opposite of the truth.
>> Capitalism does nothing to stop greed.
>
> Yep and right above I've shown why that is a good thing.
>
>> Investors are parasites.
>
> I see so I guess you could build a profitable business employing
>say,
>10,000 people without them? Because if they're parasites this would
>be easier than building it with them and lots of people do that.
We need to scrap the debt-money system. This site explains it for
those who don't know:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
We need a money supply that is not owed to bankers. The government
should print the money without borrowing anything from anyone. Money
would be brought into circulation by paying policemen and other public
servants. Once there is a debt-free money supply in circulation, the
police and other things would then be paid for by taxes. New money
would still be created when needed but we would control the amount of
it so there is no inflation.
Loans for houses and cars and business should be from the
government and at zero interest. This would initially add to the money
in circulation but when the loan is repaid the money would be removed
circulation, so there is no net increase and no inflation.
> So I guess that's you in the poorhouse since you can't even answer
>a
>simple question, would you take a 0.957% average annual return on your
>money?
We should neither lose money that is saved nor gain on money that is
saved. We should only make more money when we do something useful.
Bankers and Insurance companies are worthless parasites. Both should
be nationalized.
>
> Great, so if it's a fair share it won't be extracted by unfair
>means, like force.
No, you should pay your fair share, by force if necessary, or you can
leave the country.
>> For one thing the head of the Red Cross earns a $651,957.
>>
> And?
And private charity doesn't give all the money to the poor.
> But they are. Repeating self-evident but meaningless claims is not
>helpful.
We should all pay our fair share, and that is not meaningless.
>> You pretend that if welfare was fair you would pay your share.
>
> And you know me well enough to know it's not true?
I don't, but if you would pay your fair share what are you griping
about.
>
>> It should be made fair and people on welfare should be made to work. But
>> you are still not for it right? What is your next excuse.
>>
> I'm not for it because it's theft. Sorry thief but that's the
>facts.
If you live in a house with other people, you should pay your fair
share for the electric bill and such, or get out of the house.
>> > �Defined as killing people with darker skin and flatter noses than
>> >you.
>>
>> We should have a nation for White people. Other groups should have
>> their nations.
>>
> I note no denial.
It's obvious that Nationalists are not for killing people of other
nations. We only want what is best for our nation.
>> �People were oppresed in Dickensinian England.
>
> Another claim without evidence. Dickensian England did have
>oppression, by government agencies like the poor house and
>orphanage. The market on the other hand was setting people
>free.
Then you are more capitalist than Scrooge. Scrooge was at least
willing to pay his share for the prisons and work houses.
>
>> Capitalism wants to go back in the wrong direction.
>>
> Claim without evidence or even meaning.
Capitalists are worse than Scrooge.
> No there shouldn't be, if people want a retirement let them save for
>it.
>They have decades to solve a problem yet they want to solve it by
>force
>at the last minute.
Even if they are idiots or whatever, we should not let them starve.
> A government that controls the interest rate,
There should be no interest rate.
We need to scrap the debt-money system. This site explains it for
those who don't know:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
We need a money supply that is not owed to bankers. The government
should print the money without borrowing anything from anyone. Money
would be brought into circulation by paying policemen and other public
servants. Once there is a debt-free money supply in circulation, the
police and other things would then be paid for by taxes. New money
would still be created when needed but we would control the amount of
it so there is no inflation.
Loans for houses and cars and business should be from the
government and at zero interest. This would initially add to the money
in circulation but when the loan is repaid the money would be removed
circulation, so there is no net increase and no inflation.
> has environment
We need to protect the environment
> and
>financial
>regulations
We need to stop greed.
>that are literally impossible to read before they change
We should not have such complicated policies.
>and spends
>over 30% of the money is too capitalist? Yeah and Hitler was too
>humanitarian.
> Then logically you should be able to keep your job by working for a
>low
>enough wage that you can produce goods just as cheaply. If you don't
>then clearly you value the goods more than your job. In any case
>allowing
>outsourcing didn't destroy American jobs, lack of productivity did and
>the
>government caused that.
We should not have capitalism. We should not be competing to see who
will work for the fewest pennies.
> Mexico has been profoundly anti-Capitalist for, well forever
>really. Nice
>try moron but you know less economic theory than a rock.
Pull your head out of your aft end and look at the facts. What
anti-Capitalist laws does Mexico have? And they are poor because
Mexicans are on average less intelligent than White people.
Topaz
<nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> We need taxes for a lot of good things.
>
> No we don't. I can't think of one good thing that comes
>from taxes that we couldn't get cheaper without it.
We need taxes for street lights.
> That
>includes roads, hospitals, education and the usual
>suspects.
We need taxes for those too.
>
>> But yes, there
>> are a lot of things we need to get rid of. Here is a main one:
>>
>> By Jim Taylor
>
><snip rant about aid to Israel, mostly accurate>
> So why not lose the taxes to support that before we
>use guns to help the greedy American worker.
So you want taxes to give to the Jews, but nothing for Americans. Are
you a Jew?
> Yep, the guns they only solution for Rockhead.
Capitalists are the rockheads.
> Then obviously we're not that fussed about the problem.
It's important to stop greed.
>
> Yet you've not shown any way they can work. Indeed
>the laws you propose serve greed.
Nonsense.
JP Morgan said that a business leader should not be allowed to make
more than 20 times the average wage of his non executive workers. This
shares the wealth. A business leader may be forced to pay his workers
more, while at the same time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for
business leaders to start new businesses.
Topaz
<nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Besides stop companies from laying off Americans
>> to get cheaperworkers in Mexico and China, here is another:
>>
> That doesn't outlaw greed, in fact it benefits the greed of the
>American workers who want to work for more than their
>labor is worth while sticking it to the American consumer.
No, we should not be competing to see who will work for the fewest
pennies. We should not have capitalism.
>
>> JP Morgan said that a business leader should not be
>> allowed to make more than 20 times the average wage
>> of his non executive workers.
>
> No he didn't he limited the pay of some of his own
>executives. He earned a LOT more than that so
>presumably he only had a problem with paying, not
>recieving said amount. In any case the idea is moronic.
Pull your head out of your aft end and look the facts. What he said
was clearly good.
>Why should someone get more because they fired
>cheap unskilled workers? Or because they outsourced
>them? If your skills aren't worth 20 times the lowest
>paid worker then you won't get paid more, if they are
>why should everyone else get a discount on you?
We should not be competing to see who will work for the fewest
pennies. We should not have capitalism.
>
>> This shares the wealth. A business leader may be
>> forced to pay his workers more,
>
> Do you mean an executive or an investor?
> Big difference.
>Good luck getting investors with such a restriction. Say
>hello to the guys on the breadlines you create.
Investors are worthless parasites.
We need to scrap the debt-money system. This site explains it for
those who don't know:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
We need a money supply that is not owed to bankers. The government
should print the money without borrowing anything from anyone. Money
would be brought into circulation by paying policemen and other public
servants. Once there is a debt-free money supply in circulation, the
police and other things would then be paid for by taxes. New money
would still be created when needed but we would control the amount of
it so there is no inflation.
Loans for houses and cars and business should be from the
government and at zero interest. This would initially add to the money
in circulation but when the loan is repaid the money would be removed
circulation, so there is no net increase and no inflation.
>
>> while at the same time this idea keeps plenty of
>> incentives for business leaders to start new businesses.
>>
> Already shown (at least twice) why this is bullshit.
>
>> > How can you outlaw greed?
>>
>> �See above
>>
> Lie.
>
>> > What greed are you referring to? �People who
>> > ask and receive a government handout
>> > are also greedy, since they did not work to earn
>> > that benefit, did theh?
>>
>> No, there are not greedy.
>
> They want money they didn't get in honest trade.
All citizens of a great nation, who are willing to work, should have
food and shelter.
> Doesn't make it an honest trade.
> Topaz doesn't get it.
>Topaz please try to write something original or honest.
We need to stop greed. If capitalist don't like that then too bad.
Topaz
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> Besides stop companies from laying off Americans to get cheaper
>> workers in Mexico and China, here is another:
>
>What law would stop them from doing that?
We should have a law that if they have workers in other countries,
they can't sell their goods here.
>>
>> JP Morgan said that a business leader should not be allowed to make
>> more than 20 times the average wage of his non executive workers. This
>> shares the wealth. A business leader may be forced to pay his workers
>> more, while at the same time this idea keeps plenty of incentives for
>> business leaders to start new businesses.
>
>Nice words, but there is no law that prevents them from doing that is there?
No, but we should have that law.
>
>How does that outlaw greed?
American workers would have jobs and make a lot more money.
>
>Why isn't that greed?
All citizens of a great nation, who are willing to work, should have
food and shelter.
> And they are not force to work to receive the
>benefits are they?
No, but they should be forced to work.
>>>How can out "outlaw" something without passing a law to make it illegal?
>>
>> You can't
>
>So, then you original point is not going to happen is it?
It should happen. We should have the needed laws.
>
>That is also true, but it does not change what I said. As for how many
>people are rich, the ones who take the risks have a chance to be rich, those
>who are not willing to take the chance are not going to be rich.
Not everyone want to be rich, but everyone wants a decent life, and
if they are willing to work they should have it.
> And there
>are many more people who took the chance, and still did not end up being
>rich. It takes skill, hard work and a little bit of luck to hit the
>jackpot. And there is no guaranteee that even if you try you will end up
>being rich. That is what freedom is all about. You are free to do what you
>do do. You can either take a chance, or you can play it safe.
>> Communism was an enemy plot from the beginning. It was never supposed
>> to help people. But they were correct that capitalism is also bad.
>>
>There is no perfect system.
Wrong. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
Jerry Okamura
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:27:45 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Besides stop companies from laying off Americans to get cheaper
>>> workers in Mexico and China, here is another:
>>
>>What law would stop them from doing that?
>
> We should have a law that if they have workers in other countries,
> they can't sell their goods here.
Should have, could have, would have.
Topaz
The economy will become worse in that the average White family will
work longer and harder for a smaller reward, for fewer of the
necessities of life, for less security, for a meaner life style than
before. The average standard of living, in other words, will continue
to decline, just as it has in during the past few years. And this is
something which absolutely did not depend on the outcome of the recent
election. Both Clinton and Bush have been supporters of globalizing
the US economy. They both have been boosters of the New World Order,
in other words. They both support the removal of trade barriers with
Mexico, for example, which will accelerate the export of American
industry and American jobs to Mexico, simply because wages are much
lower there. The effect of this, of course, will be gradually to raise
wages in Mexico, while they are pulled down in the United States. But,
then, that's the whole rationale behind the push for globalization,
the push for the New World Order, isn't it? Equalize living standards
around the world. Lift up the poor non-Whites in the Third World and
drag down the rich Whites. Give everyone a fair share of industry and
the wealth which goes with it. Break down national and racial
barriers. Homogenize the world, economically, racially, culturally.
That's the idea which has been pushed inexorably and unceasingly by
the controlled media ever since the Second World War. The controlled
media have made this idea of globalization fashionable; they've made
it a Politically Correct idea, and therefore no one in the controlled
political establishment in this country, whether Democrat or
Republican, dares oppose it.
There's no chance of either a Democrat or a Republican President
announcing that the New World Order is a scheme intended to reduce the
White American worker to the same level as the Mexican peon and the
Chinese coolie and that we'll have no part of it. And because there's
simply no chance that the controlled political establishment in this
country, Democrat or Republican, will address or even admit the
existence of the fundamental reasons for the declining living standard
of Americans, I can predict with complete confidence that the economy
will continue to decline, over the long run. There are various
paper-shuffling tricks, of course--fiddling with interest rates,
changing the tax structure, rearranging the Federal budget--which can
make temporary changes in the economy, apparent changes, but they
can't cure this country's real economic problems.
It doesn't take a genius to see what's happened to the economy of this
country since the Second World War. The experts rave about the
benefits the new World Order is bringing to us by allowing us to
increase our exports. But the cold, hard reality is that globalization
has brought us an enormous trade deficit. The fact is that it has
wiped out whole industries in this country and exported them overseas:
the consumer electronics industry, for example, or the machine tool
industry. The fact, not the theory, is that millions of Americans are
being forced to switch from high-paying jobs in manufacturing and
basic industry to low-paying service jobs. The fact is that before the
Second World War most American families needed only one wage earner to
keep them comfortable and secure; wives and mothers could stay at home
and take care of their families. Today, of course, most mothers have
to work outside the home. The fact is that our economy isn't getting
better and better; it's actually getting sicker and sicker.
The Second World War really has everything to do with it. It was,
after all, an ideological war, one could almost say a religious war, a
war between two fundamentally different world views. On one side were
the believers in quality over quantity, the elitists, the believers
that White people, Europeans, are more progressive, are better able to
maintain and advance civilization. On the other side were the
believers in quantity over quality, the egalitarians, the believers in
racial and cultural equality, the people who thought it was wicked for
the United States to remain a White country, wicked for White Britain
to have a world empire, wicked for White Germany to be allowed to
smash communism, wicked to permit nationalism to triumph over
internationalism. And the fact is that the egalitarians won the war.
After the Second World War White Americans could no more justify
keeping hordes of hungry, non-White immigrants out of their country
than Englishmen could justify hanging onto the British Empire. They
had cut the moral ground right out from under themselves.
The point is that, the reasons given to the American people for
getting into the war against Germany were all spurious. It was not a
war to keep America free. Americans weren't in the slightest danger of
losing their freedom to the Germans. It was, as I said, an ideological
war. It was a war about what kind of ideas would govern the world. It
was a war about whether we would be proud and White and strong, or
whether we would feel guilty about the fact that Mexican peons aren't
as well off as we are. And we lost the war. That was a real turning
point in the fortunes of our race and our nation. The loss of the
Second World War is the real reason for the decline of the U.S.
economy--and of our social life, our cultural life, and our spiritual
life. Before the war we had a White country, a country determined to
stay White. After the war we no longer had that determination. Instead
we had the vague feeling that it was wrong of us to want to stay
White. After the war when the controlled media began pushing for
so-called "civil rights" laws and for opening our borders to the Third
World, it was just a continuation of their push to get us into the war
on the side of the people who had made Poland a more "equal" country
by slaughtering her leaders at the killing pits in the Katyn woods. We
don't really have time today to trace the whole process of the
breakdown of America after the war, but we can look at a few examples
which more or less tell the story. We've been talking about the
economy, but it's really our whole society which has been corrupted by
the war, by the ideology for which the war was fought.
Think, for example, about what life is becoming for the millions of
White Americans who still live in our cities, especially those cities
with a large minority contingent. We are no longer the masters in our
own land, and we are paying the price for that decline in status.
Crime has soared enormously in our cities and made life a daily
nightmare for millions who cannot move away. Even for those who live
in the suburbs and only must work in the cities during the day, crime
has become an ever-present constraint, a burden, a limit to their
lives. City streets which once were safe for White women and men, by
night as well as by day, are now like minefields where we must proceed
with caution and be always on guard. We know who makes our streets
unsafe. We know against whom we are obliged to bar our windows. We
know whom we must fear if our cars run out of gas or break down at
night. And these are the same people whose welfare support imposes
such an intolerable burden on our strained economy. And it is
interesting that the government cannot solve our crime problem for
exactly the same reason that it cannot solve our economic problem: it
cannot address the causes; it cannot even admit the existence of the
causes, because those causes are Politically Incorrect.
Just as the government economists talk about interest rates and
budget adjustments but dare not speak of the effects of globalism on
our economy, the sociologists talk about "poverty" as the cause of
urban crime, but dare not mention that crime in America today is above
all else a racial problem. Or look at what our schools have become, or
look at popular entertainment. You know what the purpose of a school
should be? It should be not just to pound facts into the heads of
children so they can earn a living; it should be to mold them into
good citizens. It should be to teach them about their roots, about
their ancestors, about their race. It should be to give them a sense
of identity, a feeling of solidarity with their people, a feeling of
appreciation for the civilization which their people created. It
should be to teach them the values and customs which are peculiar to
their people. But most of the schools in America's cities cannot do
these things. They are not even permitted to try to do these things,
because these things are all profoundly racist, the controlled media
tell us. The only kind of school which can teach meaningfully about
roots and identity is a school which is racially homogeneous, but such
schools were outlawed by our government after the Second World War,
because they are contrary to the principles for which that war was
fought.
When our kids turn to drugs today, when they learn anti-White rap
lyrics from the television, when they think Magic Johnson is a hero
and say upon meeting a friend, "hey, man, gimme five," we're paying
the price of the war. I said a few minutes ago that the worst aspect
of the breakdown of America was not what's happened to our economy,
but what's happened to our spiritual life, to our morale, to our
idealism, to our character. White Americans haven't become more stupid
in the last 50 years. Most of the people listening to this program
understand exactly what I'm saying. They didn't really need me to
point it out to them. They can see it for themselves. It doesn't take
a genius to understand why our schools aren't working or why the New
World Order will hurt Americans as the price of making Mexicans and
Chinese more prosperous. But it does take just a tiny bit of courage
to stand up and say these things when we've had it drummed into our
heads that we always must be Politically Correct.
The people listening to this program have for years been watching
America being torn down. They have seen the effects of egalitarianism,
of liberalism on our society. They have seen one liberal program after
another make things worse and worse, and they have listened to the
controlled media and the controlled politicians tell them that what's
needed to fix things is more of the same. And they've thought to
themselves, this is crazy. But they've been afraid to say that out
loud. They've been afraid to say, "Hey, look, Joe, the emperor doesn't
have any clothes on." And it's my considered opinion that this
timidity, this willingness to go along with every new insanity imposed
on us by the media and the politicians, even when we know it's
unnatural and immoral and destructive of everything worthwhile--this
is a spiritual failure. This spiritual failure, this willingness to
tolerate evil, is a more serious matter, in my eyes, than our economic
decline. When we are able to heal ourselves spiritually, we'll be able
to heal ourselves economically and socially, but not before.
I think we all know who wields more control over the news and
entertainment media than any other group. It's the Jews. And, yes,
they deserve a great deal of blame. But not all the blame. Perhaps not
even most of it. After all, they're only acting in accord with their
nature. They're doing what they always do when they come into a
country. We shouldn't have let them do it. We should have stopped them
when they were taking over Hollywood 75 years ago. We should have
stopped them when they began buying up newspapers back before the
Second World War. After the war we shouldn't have let them get
anywhere near a television studio. But we didn't stop them, and the
blame for that really lies with those who have set themselves up as
our political leaders. They sold us out. They sold out America. They
sold out their race. When our kids are exposed to the godawful,
anti-White rap musicals from MTV, should we blame the Jewish owner of
MTV, Mr. Redstone, or should we blame the politicians in Washington
who let him get away with it? Personally, I'd go after the politicians
first.
More people are angry today about what their government is doing to
America than at any time since the Second World War. As time passes
their numbers and their anger will grow. That is inevitable, because
the policies of the controlled media and the government are making
America an unlivable place. The condition of the economy helps too. I
would really be worried if I thought that the politicians could patch
up the economy enough to lull people back to sleep. But I know that
they can't. I know that conditions can only become worse and worse
under the policies which come from Washington, regardless of who's in
the White House. And this is what gives me hope for the future. When
the pain becomes great enough, anger and frustration will overcome the
fear of being Politically Incorrect, even for the most timid White
American.
Jerry Okamura
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k0cpi556l8ilsrk9t...@4ax.com...