New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

What Was Lost When Political Economy Became Economics?

1000 years? Wow! That's a lot of generations!

I do the family shopping and while I don't have time to go to the source, I am buying organic and free range stuff as much as I can. I'm down to eating meat only once or twice a week. I wish I could buy everything local like you do but I'm too busy at work and with chores around the house so I just don't have the time. Good to hear that you are enjoying life...
I know, 1,000 years! And of course they look after it ---

I can't always buy at source, I am not really an angel ;) Just when I can, it is expensive, I don't drive and I am not a 'rich bitch' anymore, mainly I get 'Sainsburies ( Supermarket which is still in one family's hands) to me' but I do have an Organic box of veg delivered every week and yes I buy free range and organic, we do what we can ---

I only mentioned the raw milk because it is so many years since I had tasted it - a little goes a long way as with all things good --- that is a big prob now eh? The watering down of everything at double the price.

I love lamb of all meats I love lamb but ---- they do not need to suffer for my existence so I resist. Hard as it is --------- new potatoes and fresh peas, mint sauce and white sauce --------------- oooohhhh so so hard :)

Be happy too xxx I'm off to hunt for some yuky quorn --- yuk! I really would shoot it if I had a gun -
 
The problem is that the way "democratic control" over the markets is typically done is the greater of the two evils (capitalism vs. collectivism). If we use a libertarian model that promotes freedom rather than control of markets, more people will benefit more than under either an oligarchy or socialism
If you accept the following history as true...
"
By the 1880s two colossal groups had emerged within the United States' wealthiest families. Initially they were bitter, hated rivals. In the end they became allies, not out of love but out of practicality, in one of the greatest concentrations of financial and industrial power ever seen. The two families, Rockefeller and Morgan, created a combination of wealth and control so powerful in its influence over the economic and financial life of the United States at the beginning of the 20th Century that Congressional critics named it the Money Trust."
...and you believe the Money Trust has at least the same power over democracy today as a century ago, how would Libertarians eliminate its undue influence over government?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Engdahl_F_William/American_Oligarchy_GOM.html
 

Lukey

Senator
If you accept the following history as true...
"
By the 1880s two colossal groups had emerged within the United States' wealthiest families. Initially they were bitter, hated rivals. In the end they became allies, not out of love but out of practicality, in one of the greatest concentrations of financial and industrial power ever seen. The two families, Rockefeller and Morgan, created a combination of wealth and control so powerful in its influence over the economic and financial life of the United States at the beginning of the 20th Century that Congressional critics named it the Money Trust."
...and you believe the Money Trust has at least the same power over democracy today as a century ago, how would Libertarians eliminate its undue influence over government?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Engdahl_F_William/American_Oligarchy_GOM.html
Because I don't think the influence has been in place throughout the intervening period. I'm not even sure they had as much power then as they do now (considering the Federal Reserve wasn't concocted until the progressive democrats decided in their infinite wisdom that they should control the money supply in 1913). The bigger government gets the more benefit there is to controlling it. Everyone who isn't a plutocrat should endorse a smaller, less invasive federal government.
 
Because I don't think the influence has been in place throughout the intervening period. I'm not even sure they had as much power then as they do now (considering the Federal Reserve wasn't concocted until the progressive democrats decided in their infinite wisdom that they should control the money supply in 1913)
A century ago, the word "progressive" had meaning it doesn't possess today. Hence corporate tools like Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt regularly hid behind the label while instigating "progressive reform" like the Federal Reserve.
"The election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 was the work of a small group of men who engineered a split in the Republican Party by financing a third party, the Progressive Party, nicknamed the 'Bull Moose' party for its Presidential candidate former Republican President Teddy Roosevelt."
Karl Marx was wrong about many things; however, he was dead right about one:
"Money plays the largest part in determining the course of history."
Communist Manifesto (1848)
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Engdahl_F_William/American_Oligarchy_GOM.html
 
The bigger government gets the more benefit there is to controlling it. Everyone who isn't a plutocrat should endorse a smaller, less invasive federal government.
It seems to me plutocrats would welcome a smaller, less invasive federal government since it would not cost them nearly as much to maintain their control of the US economy.

Can you give me an example of how Libertarian rule would eliminate the revolving door between DC and Wall Street?
From December 2009:

"Michael Froman is one of those behind-the-scenes technocrats who never quite makes it into full public view. But according to Matt Taibbi, he’s one of the most egregious examples — up there with Bob Rubin, literally — we’ve yet seen of the way the revolving door works between business and government generally, and between Citigroup and Treasury in particular.

"I’m not sure how much of this information is new, but a lot of it was new to me, especially the bit about Froman 'leading the search for the president’s new economic team' — while he was still pulling down a multi-million-dollar salary at Citigroup, no less. Apologies for quoting at length..."

Froman is currently back in the news as lead US negotiator for the TPP.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/12/11/michael-froman-and-the-revolving-door/
 
Oh lets never mind mans natural order eh? You are talking about suppressing that which has welled up within and forming every single civilization which has ever existed --- that we have come to this vulgar pass that a worthless wealth is become our God is our problem not a system of hierarchy its self ---- The Pyramid is our natural order and a balance of three.

Something has certainly gone wrong but knocking down the walls of what is left is not the answer --- first we needs work out what went wrong and how to rectify, untangle the web before we have any chance of rebuilding our almost invisible 'temples'.
Anyone Born With a Silver Spoon in His Mouth Will Always Speak With a Forked Tongue

Birth privileges are the natural order of decay and collapse. They are the hidden cancer that has destroyed all civilizations. The pyramid of talent is natural, but pre-ordaining who will be on top based on something as irrelevant as last generation's successes will make it all topple.

We will not work it out if we have been so brainwashed by the aristocracy that we believe in birth over worth. Besides, if the successful firmly believe they have the right to pass on their wealth, power, and influence to their own children, then they themselves must have achieved their rank through luck or cheating.

Despite all his bragging about working his way up, no self-made man really believes that made him deserve it if he doesn't demand the same way of getting ahead from his children. Therefore, a self-made man is a self-destroyed man and proves by his actions that he doesn't want his own children to wind up a hollow exhausted shell like he did.
 
Then nothing would ever get built, we only can build on the bricks which have already been laid ---
You must believe in re-incarnation if you call the heirs the bricks of the dead bricklayer. It's what he left for the rest of us and the building will rise only if his birth heirs are excluded from automatically becoming the next layer.
 
You must believe in re-incarnation if you call the heirs the bricks of the dead bricklayer. It's what he left for the rest of us and the building will rise only if his birth heirs are excluded from automatically becoming the next layer.
We are not talking about the same thing, me thinks. I am talking about knowledge --- you?
 
We will not work it out if we have been so brainwashed by the aristocracy that we believe in birth over worth. Besides, if the successful firmly believe they have the right to pass on their wealth, power, and influence to their own children, then they themselves must have achieved their rank through luck or cheating.
Chris Hedges has a special perspective on hereditary wealth due to his time as a scholarship student at an elite New England prep school, his studies Harvard Divinity, and his quarter-century career as a war correspondent covering conflicts from Central America to Palestine. The word "pathology" often finds it way into Chris's writings on the subject:
"The pathology of the rich white family is the most dangerous pathology in America. The rich white family is cursed with too much money and privilege. It is devoid of empathy, the result of lifetimes of entitlement.

"It has little sense of loyalty and lacks the capacity for self-sacrifice.

"Its definition of friendship is reduced to 'What can you do for me?'

"It is possessed by an insatiable lust to increase its fortunes and power. It believes that wealth and privilege confer to it a superior intelligence and virtue. It is infused with an unchecked hedonism and narcissism.

"And because of all this, it interprets reality through a lens of self-adulation and greed that renders it delusional.

"The rich white family is a menace.

"The pathologies of the poor, when set against the pathologies of rich white people, are like a candle set beside the sun."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_pathology_of_the_rich_white_family_20150517
 
Anyone Born With a Silver Spoon in His Mouth Will Always Speak With a Forked Tongue

Birth privileges are the natural order of decay and collapse. They are the hidden cancer that has destroyed all civilizations. The pyramid of talent is natural, but pre-ordaining who will be on top based on something as irrelevant as last generation's successes will make it all topple.

We will not work it out if we have been so brainwashed by the aristocracy that we believe in birth over worth. Besides, if the successful firmly believe they have the right to pass on their wealth, power, and influence to their own children, then they themselves must have achieved their rank through luck or cheating.

Despite all his bragging about working his way up, no self-made man really believes that made him deserve it if he doesn't demand the same way of getting ahead from his children. Therefore, a self-made man is a self-destroyed man and proves by his actions that he doesn't want his own children to wind up a hollow exhausted shell like he did.
That is a rant from an old manual, even older than EatTheRich's by the sounds of it.

I have no political ideology, I don't even like politics and think the less Politicos do do the better ---- I think in fact that the World would be a happier place if we paid them all ten times more than we do for them simply to bugger off and play golf or watch Cricket or what ever takes their fancy.

That some families are so wealthy is, I agree, obscene. One member of my own family is in fact married into one of your incredibly wealthy families and so I know that one of the Grandmothers spends her days, from morn til night and for the most ridiculous reasons ---- such as 'she walked two paces in front of me instead of three into dinner tonight' ------ disinheriting and re-inheriting members of the family --- that is what their empty lives are filled with, The Inheritance, whilst their fabulous wealth is managed by men in grey who hold a switch on the very breath of life of millions and millions of people --- whom they do not, cannot, see as people.
On the other hand and again from personal experience I have liked all the old Aristos I have even known and or met as is so with those of the old working class when there was one --- it is always the middle classes I have never got on with so well and who are the trouble makers imho---Aristos and wealth no longer go hand in hand.

There are pros and cons to old money, which seams to be your pet peeve --- of that Steiner's solutions is something like --- that some of the wealth is handed down for the inheritor to use for ten years after that it, the inheritance, goes back into the pot but what the inheritor might have made off it is theirs. Of Land, rich and or poor, farmers large and small, it stays in the family so that the Land is in the hands of people who able to be far seeing ----

There are varying reasons for past Civilizations falling but most were not for the reason you site.
 
I have no political ideology, I don't even like politics and think the less Politicos do do the better ---- I think in fact that the World would be a happier place if we paid them all ten times more than we do for them simply to bugger off and play golf or watch Cricket or what ever takes their fancy.
The problem in DC (and all 50 state capitals) is the 1% are paying the pols so much money the rest of us would have to go even deeper into debt to get rid of them. Then there's the little problem of the actions some rich people resort to when they don't get their way:

"Rich white families are also the most efficient killers on the planet. This has been true for five centuries, starting with the conquest of the Americas and the genocide against Native Americans, and continuing through today’s wars in the Middle East.

"Rich white families themselves don’t actually kill.

"They are not about to risk their necks on city streets or in Iraq.

"They hire people, often poor, to kill for them. Rich white families wanted the petroleum of Iraq and, by waving the flag and spewing patriotic slogans, got a lot of poor kids to join the military and take the oil fields for them. Rich white people wanted endless war for the benefit of their arms industry and got it by calling for a war on terror.

"Rich white people wanted police to use lethal force against the poor with impunity and to arrest them, swelling U.S. prisons with 25 percent of the world’s prison population, so they set up a system of drug laws and militarized police departments to make it happen."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/the_pathology_of_the_rich_white_family_20150517
 
The problem in DC (and all 50 state capitals) is the 1% are paying the pols so much money the rest of us would have to go even deeper into debt to get rid of them. Then there's the little problem of the actions some rich people resort to when they don't get their way:

"Rich white families are also the most efficient killers on the planet. This has been true for five centuries, starting with the conquest of the Americas and the genocide against Native Americans, and continuing through today’s wars in the Middle East.

"Rich white families themselves don’t actually kill.

"They are not about to risk their necks on city streets or in Iraq.

"They hire people, often poor, to kill for them. Rich white families wanted the petroleum of Iraq and, by waving the flag and spewing patriotic slogans, got a lot of poor kids to join the military and take the oil fields for them. Rich white people wanted endless war for the benefit of their arms industry and got it by calling for a war on terror.

"Rich white people wanted police to use lethal force against the poor with impunity and to arrest them, swelling U.S. prisons with 25 percent of the world’s prison population, so they set up a system of drug laws and militarized police departments to make it happen."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/the_pathology_of_the_rich_white_family_20150517

'Rich white families'? So the latest propaganda is a reversed racism is it? And where will that lead us? As with the demonizing of men it is meant only to deepen the divide --- Shall we see rich white 'strange fruits' hanging from southern trees soon, I wonder.

The Police were set up to protect Wealth were they not? Americas corruption I can't comment on it isn't my place too but to me it looks just the same as it did when I lived there in the 1960s only now it is reported on and now the Police are the baddies where as once such shootings rarely reached the Press and when they did the Police were the goodies and for exactly the same actions as now.

The unrest of now is not because of what the so called 1% have it is because of what 'we' do not have, or rather what we have lost, not many complained when our credit cards were a plenty. Not many cared, in fact there was a sort of respect for, about the very rich who could buy their way out of trouble and ect and not many gave a damn for the very poor when they themselves were having a 'good time' spending an illusion called money ---- I am uneasy about this mob/lynch party mentality now, it has an air of the guillotine about it, I'm especially uneasy that 'we' are being thrown scape goats to appease the mobs lust for blood - well here we are I don't know about you - and then even if the mob is not appeased the press is so the real stories disappear -
We are also being sent mixed messages, The empty headed and moneyed celebs are put on pedestals for us to revere and emulate and yet the moneyed rich white families should be showered with rotten eggs ---
I have watched this unfold and though I do and always have agreed that The Power is in the hands of evil doers, I fear the baby is about to be thrown out but the bath water not if we carry on being led by the nose to bash down the doors of bit players whilst the World carries on in its wicked ways -

We are always being lied to even about the things one might emotively agree with --- Even i we understand what is wrong with the Ways of the World not many of us are giving serious thought to how best rectify the wrongs and so we call only for cosmetic changes instead of looking at and calling for truth.
 
Last edited:

Lukey

Senator
A century ago, the word "progressive" had meaning it doesn't possess today. Hence corporate tools like Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt regularly hid behind the label while instigating "progressive reform" like the Federal Reserve.
"The election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 was the work of a small group of men who engineered a split in the Republican Party by financing a third party, the Progressive Party, nicknamed the 'Bull Moose' party for its Presidential candidate former Republican President Teddy Roosevelt."
Karl Marx was wrong about many things; however, he was dead right about one:
"Money plays the largest part in determining the course of history."
Communist Manifesto (1848)
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Engdahl_F_William/American_Oligarchy_GOM.html
Money and power are almost synonymous. In the absence of inequality of wealth, narcissists will still manipulate the political system to accumulate power and influence. This is why you see the political and military classes in communist societies living like royalty even though their economic system prevents them from having a large bank account. This is the dirty little secret behind the collectivist movement, the utopians (which I am assuming you are) envision a society free of class divisions once wealth is outlawed, and yet it very rarely works out that way (and only in the tiniest of countries, like Cuba - although even they have a political elite "class"). But once implemented, the narcissists go about busily accumulating power and rights that the rest of society aren't permitted. I'd rather we acknowledge that these people exist, equally distribute liberty and freedom and opportunity (through a smaller, less powerful federal government like the founders envisioned) and make them compete with the rest of us on an even playing field.
 

Lukey

Senator
It seems to me plutocrats would welcome a smaller, less invasive federal government since it would not cost them nearly as much to maintain their control of the US economy.

Can you give me an example of how Libertarian rule would eliminate the revolving door between DC and Wall Street?
From December 2009:

"Michael Froman is one of those behind-the-scenes technocrats who never quite makes it into full public view. But according to Matt Taibbi, he’s one of the most egregious examples — up there with Bob Rubin, literally — we’ve yet seen of the way the revolving door works between business and government generally, and between Citigroup and Treasury in particular.

"I’m not sure how much of this information is new, but a lot of it was new to me, especially the bit about Froman 'leading the search for the president’s new economic team' — while he was still pulling down a multi-million-dollar salary at Citigroup, no less. Apologies for quoting at length..."

Froman is currently back in the news as lead US negotiator for the TPP.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/12/11/michael-froman-and-the-revolving-door/
Here's another as bad (if not worse) example:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-28/revolving-door-goes-full-retard-sec-hires-goldmanite-who-previously-worked-sec

Why do you think these kinds of revolving door situations are so rampant? One need look no further than the comments of one Lloyd Blankfein himself:

“If I could push a button and eliminate Dodd-Frank would I do it? No, I would not,” Mr. Blankfein said, in an interview conducted David Rubenstein, president of the Economic Club and a co-founder of the Carlyle Group.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/in-washington-blankfein-backs-dodd-frank/?_r=0

And why is that?

“More intense regulatory and technology requirements have raised the barriers to entry higher than at any other time in modern history,” said Mr. Blankfein. “This is an expensive business to be in, if you don’t have the market share in scale. Consider the numerous business exits that have been announced by our peers as they reassessed their competitive positioning and relative returns.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/regulation-is-good-for-goldman-1423700859

Regulation supports the oligarchs and their lackeys in government. Less regulation (what's left aimed at transparency and open access to markets) and let the chips fall where they may gives us all a better shot at prosperity.
 
'Rich white families'? So the latest propaganda is a reversed racism is it? And where will that lead us? As with the demonizing of men it is meant only to deepen the divide --- Shall we see rich white 'strange fruits' hanging from southern trees soon, I wonder.
I hope we won't (outside the cinema, that is), but, if the following account of US History is accurate, the cartel of 60 wealthy, white US families has no one to blame but themselves for that deepening divide, imho.
"It was the creation of an American aristocracy of blood and money, every bit as elite and exclusive as the titled nobility of Britain, Germany or France - despite the Constitutional ban on titled nobility in America. It was an oligarchy, a plutocracy in every sense of the word - rule by the wealthiest in their self-interest.

"Some 60 families - names like Rockefeller, Morgan, Dodge, Mellon, Pratt, Harkness, Whitney, Duke, Harriman, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, DuPont, Guggenheim, Astor, Lehman, Warburg, Taft, Huntington, Baruch and Rosenwald formed a close network of plutocratic wealth that manipulated, bribed, and bullied its way to control the destiny of the United States.

"At the dawn of the 20th Century, some sixty ultra-rich families, through dynastic intermarriage and corporate, interconnected shareholdings, had gained control of American industry and banking institutions."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Engdahl_F_William/American_Oligarchy_GOM.html
 

Lukey

Senator
I hope we won't (outside the cinema, that is), but, if the following account of US History is accurate, the cartel of 60 wealthy, white US families has no one to blame but themselves for that deepening divide, imho.
"It was the creation of an American aristocracy of blood and money, every bit as elite and exclusive as the titled nobility of Britain, Germany or France - despite the Constitutional ban on titled nobility in America. It was an oligarchy, a plutocracy in every sense of the word - rule by the wealthiest in their self-interest.

"Some 60 families - names like Rockefeller, Morgan, Dodge, Mellon, Pratt, Harkness, Whitney, Duke, Harriman, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, DuPont, Guggenheim, Astor, Lehman, Warburg, Taft, Huntington, Baruch and Rosenwald formed a close network of plutocratic wealth that manipulated, bribed, and bullied its way to control the destiny of the United States.

"At the dawn of the 20th Century, some sixty ultra-rich families, through dynastic intermarriage and corporate, interconnected shareholdings, had gained control of American industry and banking institutions."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Engdahl_F_William/American_Oligarchy_GOM.html
It isn't. One man's "robber baron" is another man's "captain of industry." Rockefeller was not the predatory thief he was made out to be by the early American progressive (anti-capitalist) movement. Rockefeller is a bad guy to you but he used his business acumen to develop uses for all the byproducts of oil that he could sell rather than just spill it onto the ground or into a creek like his competitors, whom he bought out one by one and then used his economies of scale to lower his prices to consumers. Yes, he got rich doing so, like Bill Gates or Sam Walton or any number of other famous men of vast wealth have. That made him a target of those who are persuaded by Marx's economic theories and many of them wrote the version of history you have cited here. That doesn't change the facts...
 
I hope we won't (outside the cinema, that is), but, if the following account of US History is accurate, the cartel of 60 wealthy, white US families has no one to blame but themselves for that deepening divide, imho.
"It was the creation of an American aristocracy of blood and money, every bit as elite and exclusive as the titled nobility of Britain, Germany or France - despite the Constitutional ban on titled nobility in America. It was an oligarchy, a plutocracy in every sense of the word - rule by the wealthiest in their self-interest.

"Some 60 families - names like Rockefeller, Morgan, Dodge, Mellon, Pratt, Harkness, Whitney, Duke, Harriman, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, DuPont, Guggenheim, Astor, Lehman, Warburg, Taft, Huntington, Baruch and Rosenwald formed a close network of plutocratic wealth that manipulated, bribed, and bullied its way to control the destiny of the United States.

"At the dawn of the 20th Century, some sixty ultra-rich families, through dynastic intermarriage and corporate, interconnected shareholdings, had gained control of American industry and banking institutions."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Engdahl_F_William/American_Oligarchy_GOM.html
But, baby, whether we like it or not, as Lukey said above, far better than I can, that is the natural order of man kinds structures of civilization - The Pyramid - it is organic, the problems of today have come about because those at the top did not grow from out of us, in that we didn't see it happening and were not in accord with it, no one accepted these people as our 'Elders' or 'Chiefs' and indeed we don't even know who half of them are, their power is insidious and worst of all they don't like any of us very much - America is especial and has especial problems to sort out but the rest of the World, through the breaking down of our hard fought for Institutions, is now mirroring your problems, so we find ourselves all in the same boat. It has been an odd journey to this pass but I shan't begin on that particular rant, the brainwashing of the World and the Freudians and two European Wars, an insidious occupying force call the EU and of course in my case Thatcher -spit spit. New bloody Labour and the rest of the gang.
The web is a very tangled one, it is complex, instead of properly using our thinkers it is all too easy to simply blame the Rich Bitches at the top and be done with it, a thing I am not averse to doing myself in weaker moments -we all do it but it is irresponsible in a way because we are all in this together and we allowed it to be as it is, we all saw in the 80s how careless we all are, and now that the Party is over what are you proposing? Do we really want a French or Russian type coup/revolution where even worse bastards take the rudder? --- Do we really want Communism, God help us I shall truly jump off this Planet if we do --- Actually most of us are cowards, we shan't fight for a better balance in our respective societies --- we shall take the easy way out and take second best because it is more comfortable.

Oh and as for the Cinema -who owns Hollywood? It seems to me to simply be an advert for the War machine --- first seen on screen followed by the reality.
 
Last edited:
Money and power are almost synonymous. In the absence of inequality of wealth, narcissists will still manipulate the political system to accumulate power and influence. This is why you see the political and military classes in communist societies living like royalty even though their economic system prevents them from having a large bank account
For private central bankers, money is power; they don't care who writes the laws as long as they control the money supply, and they have been doing just that for centuries in England and a single century in the US.

Carroll Quigley believed they were making a mistake by remaining secretive:

"This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States, in regard to domestic reform and in foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extremeLeft-wing elements ...

"This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the Radical right believes the Communists act.

"In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other group, and frequently does so.

"I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley#Quigley.27s_claims_about_the_Milner_Group

btw: Quigley's Tragedy and Hope Kindle version is currently available on Amazon for free.

These people have no use for equality in their world, and I don't see any institution other than direct democracy capable of fighting their influence. In a nation state of 300 million people, government would seem to offer the only viable tool.
 

Lukey

Senator
For private central bankers, money is power; they don't care who writes the laws as long as they control the money supply, and they have been doing just that for centuries in England and a single century in the US.

Carroll Quigley believed they were making a mistake by remaining secretive:

"This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States, in regard to domestic reform and in foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extremeLeft-wing elements ...

"This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the Radical right believes the Communists act.

"In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other group, and frequently does so.

"I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley#Quigley.27s_claims_about_the_Milner_Group

btw: Quigley's Tragedy and Hope Kindle version is currently available on Amazon for free.

These people have no use for equality in their world, and I don't see any institution other than direct democracy capable of fighting their influence. In a nation state of 300 million people, government would seem to offer the only viable tool.
Interestingly I don't disagree. If we're talking about efforts to rein in the Fed, beginning with a full and comprehensive audit, then the Tea Party (small government) libertarians are where you should place your allegiance. That hardly, however, makes a good argument for doing away with capitalism - what your man Quigley here is referring to is certainly not free market capitalism.
 
Why do you think these kinds of revolving door situations are so rampant? One need look no further than the comments of one Lloyd Blankfein himself:

“If I could push a button and eliminate Dodd-Frank would I do it? No, I would not,” Mr. Blankfein said, in an interview conducted David Rubenstein, president of the Economic Club and a co-founder of the Carlyle Group.
"Goldman and JPMorgan have complained about many aspects of Dodd-Frank and worked to weaken many provisions. But they realize that the policies that cramp their profits also kill their competitors. That's a win-lose for the big guys. It's a lose-lose for the economy."
There's no doubt that government has many laws already on the books it could employ against white collar crime if it wasn't owned by Wall Street.

In general regulation supports the oligarchs when its written by their lobbyists and enforced by their lackeys. It seems to always come back to getting private money out of public election campaigns.

"Dodd-Frank is indeed killing community banks, a recent study from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government suggests. Marshall Lux of the Kennedy School found that just before and during the financial crisis, these small banks lost market share — about 6 percent total from mid-2006 through mid-2010.

"Then, it seems, the real threat to community banks’ emerged: Dodd-Frank. Since mid-2010, community banks have lost 12 percent of market share."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/goldman-and-jpmorgan-sit-safely-behind-the-walls-of-dodd-frank/article/2560179
 
Top