From the credit crisis to online politics and the politics of using Wikipedia to further one's own or everybody's advantage
The UK media keep using the terms "quantitative easing" and "printing money" as a way of justifying what central banks are doing. Of course, we are meant to believe that it is the respective elected Governments which are in charge. But everybody knows of the "global elite". My question is how best to use the web to counteract on millions of screens what is agreed in boardrooms and on yachts by an estimated 6000 individuals.…
Article comments
26 - Cindy D
John Perkins: Jerk, Con Man, Shill
Greg Palast vouches for John Perkins in that article. Said he knew him when they were fighting at odds. Now he's his friend.
Okay, interesting. I'll keep at it.
27 - Sabine K McNeill
Thanks, Roger and Cindy,
Until I write that article, have a look at the video on End the Fed.
I'm focussing on Westminster for the moment.
Sabine
28 - Roger Nowosielski
Sabine,
Thanks for the video. Haven't seen all forty-some minutes of it, but it should be an eye-opener. Interestingly, it's from Ludwig von Mises Institute; it's against their policy to be affiliated with a political party (though they're leaning toward Libertarian Party, and have a working relationship with Ron Paul); a respectable organization, in other words.
Before embarking on your project, you might also want to look at Dillon, Read and Co, and The Aristocracy of Stock Profits.
It's over 80 pages, counting footnotes and references, 18 articles in all; the ones of interest are on international banking influence and the Rothschild connection.
I think the topic of demystifying/
demythologizing world banking is of critical importance, not only for the reason(s) already stated, namely, making the average person aware of this shrouded-in mystery subject, but there's another potential gain. Let me illustrate.
"Then there's your fantasy of a plutocratic conspiracy. It's pure hogwash. Everyone wants to make money and as much as they can. 300 families hardly control all the nation's wealth, and even with what control they do have they are not in a position to change the structure of the economy and shut down the unions."
The above citation, let it appear anonymous, turned on one of the threads today; and it's just an example you get from the many rabid defenders of our present policies, fiscal or otherwise, even in the face of worldwide calamity. Well, I am hoping it is not representative of every Republic or conservative thinker. Consequently, I think there is a common ground to be found between the more enlightened and forward looking elements of conservative thinking (such as Ron Paul, for instance) and those on the Left.
So we may either agree that capitalistic system, as a whole, is at fault; the other option would be to argue that the system was hijacked by the few and is the result of collusion between powerful business interest and those at the highest level of government. I think many conservative thinkers of an independent mind (I hope this is not an oxymoron) would tend to lean towards the second proposition (von Mises, for instance), not the first. Hence the potential for reaching the common ground.
I wouldn't mind corroborating with you on this project if you could use my help.
Roger
29 - Cindy D
Ron Paul seems to have more appeal to a "different" crowd on the left.
So we may either agree that capitalistic system, as a whole, is at fault; the other option would be to argue that the system was hijacked by the few and is the result of collusion between powerful business interest and those at the highest level of government.
Or we could consider that the Capitalist system (as we know it) always was highjacked by the elite and that it started that way.
I should probably try to do my 1st article on Capitalism about now. But I'm not sure I can manage it.
If you're interested have a look at the birthplace of modern Capitalism which looks to be England mid-18th century. You'll want to look at the "Enclosure Acts". The land, which had been commonly used by the people, to grow food and raise sheep, etc. was enclosed.
This not only aided the agricultural revolution but the industrial revolution. Once people could not access the land they had little choice but to move to places like London to become wage slaves.
If you look at the way it's written in some encyclopedias, it looks like it's a wonderful thing for agriculture. Lots of stuff about how the soil had been depleted, blah, blah.
This is the first accumulation of capital by robbing the people of the common land. Capitalism has always consisted of the rich robbing the poor to accumulate capital.
The Capitalist system is on the whole at fault. It was designed at the start to require slaves. Looking into the conversations of the time that were held among the rich about the poor, will give further evidence.
Interesting aside: When Milton Friedman discusses the move of the disenfranchised to London to work in sweat shops, know what he says? He says, something along the lines of--people only moved to London because they thought it would better their circumstances. They did this out of free choice.
(So far, that's what I think.)
30 - Cindy D
An anonymous protest poem from the 17th century summed up the anti-enclosure feeling:
They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.
31 - Roger Nowosielski
You're probably right, but it's impossible to convince die-hards like Nally and his crowd with a reasoned argument. Their mind is made up no matter what; plus in Nally's case, there is a conflict of interest, wearing two hats at once. I'm debating whether I should address this in a public forum. You just have to forget about these people
So the best strategy would be to address present conditions and, as I said, the more enlightened elements of the conservative movement, especially if one can back it up with a strong argument: then, they'll be able to hold on to their cherished illusions while at the same time, create substantial opposition to the possibility of a collusion between Big Business and government on a global scale. They're against big government, in principle at least; so the battle would be already half-won.
32 - Cindy D
Big business and the government are they really separable?
33 - Roger Nowosielski
To people like Nally & company, YES!
34 - Lumpy
Nice to see the anticapitalist delusion in full bloom here. Answer me this. Why are you so eager to be slaves? Are you really that lazy and that scared?
35 - Roger Nowosielski
You completely misread what is being said. I suggest you read the entire thread and then come back - whoever you are!
36 - Cindy D
He more likely didn't bother reading what you said. He doesn't argue with anything ever. Just discounts it.
37 - Roger Nowosielski
I guess everyone craves for attention.
38 - Sabine K McNeill
Well, my dear and money-banking-business-curious e-friends,
Here's another link you may want to explore from Catherine Fitts, written in 2002: The Myth of the Rule of Law - or How the Money Works: The Destruction of Hamilton Securities Group.
S
39 - Cindy D
If Noam Chomsky is right, that about 20% of the population is the political class, and need to be kept under necessary illusions to do the right thing by the elites, and 80% of the population is in a class of people that are just supposed to not know anything, just be entertained and stay out of the way--then maybe people who don't argue are accidentally here when they are actually supposed to be watching football games or the like.
40 - Roger Nowosielski
I've read all about Hamilton Securities, Sabine. I'll check on the other aspects.
RN
41 - Roger Nowosielski
You're probably right about the breakdown. But let's face it, some of what passes as intelligent thought on these threads is pure entertainment. So I don't blame him in a way. He just picked the wrong site.
42 - Roger Nowosielski
Cindy,
Maybe you can help me? Do you work with Microsoft Office, Word 2007?
43 - Cindy D
Roger,
It depends on what you need to know. I don't own them. But, I can use them.
44 - Roger Nowosielski
It's OK. I'm connecting with Lisa. She should be able to help me.
45 - bliffle
Big Business NEEDS Big Government. To support their objectives.
Doesn't the Bush regime demonstrate that?
46 - Roger Nowosielski
It's an unholy alliance, Bliffle.
47 - Dave Nalle
It's not an "unholy alliance", it's just one way of running a government. It probably isn't the best way or the way that I would choose, but it's not inherently evil or destructive or oppressive.
The alliance between business interests and the state goes back to well before this nation was founded, and in most instances it has ultimately worked to the benefit of the people as a whole.
One of the proper roles of government is to assure that there is an environment in the nation which is conducive to the growth and prosperity of business, with laws that protect businesses and workers and the public without being punitive or biased.
We run into problems when this relationship becomes distorted and devolves into favoritism and a corruption of the law to bend to the benefit of specific parties. It can be argued that we've seen some of this in the Bush administration, but certainly no more than in other recent administrations, particularly Clinton's. The only difference is that the two administrations had different favorites. It just happens that the elements of the business community which the Bush administration has favored are ones which a lot of people have a beef with, particularly the oil industry -- a hostility which I think makes very little sense considering the major role which they play in the economy and our national security and the efforts they have made to diversify, provide better products and be socially responsible.
Dave
48 - Roger Nowosielski
Dave,
I am using the term metaphorically. And I have no problem with earlier application, as for example during the Mercantile era, when the East India Trading Co., for one, was an arm in a manner of speaking of the British Empire. There are always, of course, two point of view in any debate, but from the vantage point of history, it is arguable that British colonization effort did bring about at least as much good - education, civil service - as it did not.
As to the present, I see the matter of the relationship in a little different light and, mind you, I'm not making any distinction here as to which administration we're talking about.
Since the 80s and the rise of globalism, there has been a view shared by a great many people to the effect that corporations have usurped much of the political power. Whether you agree with it or not, I don't think it's a desirable thing. Of course, we're dealing here with a chain of events, the march of history, and try as you may, I don't think it's revocable; we just have to live with it and do our best. But I AM concerned with this shift of power (a believable proposition, in my mind) and the inability of the State to deal with it. Perhaps we have a difference of opinion here, but to my thinking, the State ought to have the ultimate authority (and by "State" I'm being politically-neutral, using it within the context of political theory)
Which is perhaps the basis of our disagreement. I think the State ought to rule (I mean political institutions). You, perhaps because of your commitment to libertarian values, don't see it as a problem. So apart from the circumstances which are liable to promote a climate of secrecy, secret deal-making, corruption and fraud - on which we both agree is not a desirable thing - we may have a more substantial difference as to our understanding of political theory.
I am presuming all along that you're still subscribing to the idea of autonomous and independent nation-states. (If you favor the World Government, then the terms this discussion no longer apply.)
Roger
49 - Dave Nalle
No, I'll pass on the whole world government thing, thanks.
And indeed, I would rather see businesses given relatively free reign than have them excessively managed by or dependent on government.
IMO your example of the East India Company is a very powerful negative example. It was abusive of its privelege, badly managed and ultimately bankrupted itself. A terrible example of government and business cooperating with results which were ultimately disastrous for everyone.
Dave
50 - Cindy D
Sabine,
Your link in #38 is not good. I linked to the article below. I hope that's an acceptable website for you.
The Myth of the Rule of Law - or How the Money Works: The Destruction of Hamilton Securities Group.
51 - Roger Nowosielski
Dave,
However, the main issue ultimately is who is in charge - global corporations or the State. And which is more desirable. It can be dealt on the level of theory. As to the actual practice, I guess we'll have to wait and see. And I don't deny that there were abuses in the Mercantile system (of course, we have the hindsight of history to evaluate more clearly). But at least that did fit the paradigm of the State, or the political authority, reigning supreme. The problem with the present is that many people perceive, whether correctly or incorrectly, that the paradigm may have been tilted in favor of business; and if they ARE correct, I'd say this is cause for concern.
But as I said, it may be too early to call the shots; we'll just have to wait and see.
Roger
52 - Dave Nalle
IMO it's always better if things tilt in favor of business than if they tilt in favor of the state. Businesses at least produce something and grow the economy. The role of the state is generally negative and confiscatory rather than productive.
Dave
53 - Sabine K McNeill
Thanks, Cindy, for putting a functioning link up!
While you all will have been taken by the Obama spirit, I can report on a little meeting at Westminster. I also met a UK lady who is a qualified New York lawyer and who adds 'corporatism' as the fourth power that, indeed, Roger, cannot be ignored, nor 'rewound'. She also signalled that everything points towards more and more centralisation and monopolization. And, yes, Dave, that's my ultimate fear: one central bank and one single global currency.
When I got online, I had a German poem in my inbox that was written by a remarkable lawyer and author Kurt Tucholsky in 1930 which is as true today as it was then...
So what has changed in the corridors of power of banks / central banks and the corridors of politicians / state?
In my analysis, we have to distinguish between companies in the financial and the real industry.
But money connects the two. As the blood of a nation, it should be 'clean'. But it ain't! Hazel Henderson has written a great and very funny analysis diagnosing the economic body politic.
I think I shall start another online petition comparing bailout money with taxpayers' money...
Sabine
54 - Roger Nowosielski
Dave,
Concerning #52, you had better realize then that you're abandoning the notion of "the State" as a political institution, as the ultimate authority and guarantor of societal life. I have no problem if you do and can discuss the issues with you on that level. But having said that, we both better be aware of what we're getting into. It's a brand new territory. There is no precedent for this kind of development in human history, never mind that it counters all political thought from Plato to Aristotle. But I'm game if you are. I'll just view it as "thought-experiment."
Roger
55 - Roger Nowosielski
Keep on plugging, Sabine. Put your UK connections to best use.
Roger
56 - Sabine K McNeill
Hi again,
I just thought I should alert you to the video Fiat Empire - Why the Fed Violates the US Constitution.
I'm working with a British lawyer who's accredited in New York on the equivalent here, and we plan a presentation "The Rule of Law v the Religion of Money". I'll think about an article for BC in that context.
Onwards and upwards as always!
Sabine
57 - Roger Nowosielski
Good to hear from you, Sabine,
There had been some new links on other threads offering a counter-argument. When I find them, I'll post it for you here.
Roger
58 - ne(de kr)aM
Sabine, 'onward and upward' or 'onward through the fog'?
de kr
59 - Sabine K McNeill
Sorry, de kr, my first language is German, and the link to 'onward through the fog' doesn't work...
But it's good that you wrote!
S [have just created a new blog to focus on positive solutions: Trade Pounds + Links = Barter Currencies