 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Governments can pick winners.
Anyone,
The false script imagines into being two fictitious enemies.
Socialism
Capitalism
Please step back. A lie has a purpose, and knowing the purpose leads to knowing that a person volunteers to work toward that purpose, a person invents the lie, and this must be known. The lie doesn't happen by accident.
The criminal will invent a diversion during the crime so as to capture the attention of any power that could otherwise stop the crime in progress. The thief my yell "Thief" and point at some innocent person during the crime as the criminal steals, the victim of theft may be looking where the thief is pointing, while the thief steals from the victim, and all the people who could be in a position to stop the crime are looking where the thief is pointing, and thereby the thief invents the lie, fabricates the false story, so as to make crime pay.
Who pays?
That is a low level fabrication of one false entity used by criminals to perpetuate crime.
How much more effective is it to create two imaginary beings, point to those fabrications, and cause other people to focus attention upon an imaginary fight between those two imaginary combatants?
In the case of the thief inventing an imaginary second thief, an innocent victim is rendered powerless. In the case of a more complex lie, whereby two imaginary foes are fighting each other, the criminal inventor can recruit fellow criminals into the scarce supply of criminals, and thereby reduce the power of the potential victim group.
In order to know of which I speak the reader must learn from history. This criminal tactic, of inventing fictitious combatants, has its roots in logic, along the lines of theories published by a man named Hegel. Hegelism observes thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis, whereby the goal is synthesis, and the means of arriving at the goal is to create a thesis, to create an anti-thesis, and to arrive at the goal of synthesis.
I will offer a general description along with two links that intend to support the validity of the general description.
The criminals, legal or otherwise, decide that they want to eliminate competition, and they want to make certain that power remains scarce, and they want to make sure that the supply of scarce power remains within their exclusive control, they control power, and their target synthesis, is to keep that power.
In order to get that power to control power they decide to use the power they have in the work of creating, out of thin air, a fictitious power, by hiring a leader of the fictitious power, and then funneling money to that leader, of that fictitious power, and inspire that leader to use the power given to him, to gain more power with that power, and at the same time, nearby, another leader, and another leader, are also given power, and also tasked with the power to empower this new fictitious being, and the idea is to finance both sides, and all sides, in a new power struggle, where each new leader works to gain all the power available, and each new leader is then set against each other new leader, so as to cause a very destructive conflict, and once it is over, the criminals enforce debt payments from the survivors, and the criminals sell "reconstruction" to the survivors, and the criminals gain control of all the various channels and methods by which surplus wealth is accounted for and controlled.
Not too distant past examples:
WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER
The creation of a new fight between the Terrorists against the Anti-Terrorists cause the creation of what new synthesis?
Can you guess?
If you don't see it, it doesn't disappear. If it doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that a common belief of the fiction isn't real.
Actual criminals actually exist and they actually plan, and they actually perpetrate those plans, and actual innocent victims die miserable deaths by the millions and millions perpetually, or until the time at which the innocent victims are clued in, and then they do something effective in avoiding victimization. Not seeing that does not make that go away.
Fictitious beings are created, to take credit and blame, so as to allow the actual people who produce these fictitious being to cover-up their crimes, during these crimes, and when these crimes become obvious crimes, eventually, as the screams of torture reach volumes that can no longer be ignored, and as the piles of murdered bodies clog the rivers and roads of commerce, the criminals can blame the legal fictions and the legal criminals are thereby free to create new legal fictions, or rotate the employees holding the offices of the current legal fictions, so long as all defensive power is used up on wasted effort channeled toward the imaginary beings.
National interest did it, nothing personal, business is business.
Still skeptical?
I have Real News for you.
Socialism and capitalism are both fictions that can be measured physically, as a consequence of a belief in those fictions, and the physical measure is done in financial accounting of surplus wealth.
When surplus wealth flows from those who create it to a central location the financial account proves that surplus wealth exists, and the financial account proves that surplus wealth flows from those who create surplus wealth to the central location.
Those are the facts, just like the fact that early human societies consisted of many farmers creating surplus wealth in the form of food, and the food traveled from the farms to a central location called a granary.
A person can view such transfers of surplus wealth, measurable, and accurately measurable, physical, transfers of surplus wealth' by any name they can invent, and any name that other people agree to use, when people use the name to describe the physical transfers of surplus wealth from those who create it to the central, collective, physical, places, where surplus wealth is stored, and controlled.
A person can choose to call the practice of moving surplus wealth from those who create it to a physical central collective collection place with the label Socialism or Capitalism.
A rose by any other name, smells like a rose, yes or no?
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is a duck, does it seem silly to call it fried chicken?
If the process by which the surplus wealth flows from those who create it to the central storage place is accomplished by way of deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence by the people who seize control over that flow, and that store of surplus wealth, then the accurate name for such a condition of life, social life, is an involuntary association, or crime, or extortion, or any number of words in any language where the word means the same thing.
A process by which a powerful few seize control over surplus wealth flowing from those who create surplus wealth to a single controllable power place, and that process proceeds against the will and/or against the knowledge of the creators of that surplus wealth - is what it is - by any other name, it remains the same process.
If the criminals can convince the creators of surplus wealth that they are two groups instead of one group, and thereby perpetuate conflict among the creators of surplus wealth, things may occur, as a result of that imaginary, fictitious, conflict, that is only a conflict when the victims are convinced of that false, fabricated, belief of that lie, perpetrated by those who divide and conquer, by that knowable, and known, process.
1. The rate of increase in production of surplus wealth is controlled by the criminals.
2. The power to avoid victimization is lost; for lack of power.
3. Competition is reduced, eliminated, and willfully made powerless
4. Conflict replaces competition, by fraud, and by force
5. Destruction replaces production, production is consumed in the work of destruction
6. Power flows from those who create it, to those who steal it, perpetually
From a simple lie, as the thief points and calls out "thief", to divert defensive power, to shunt it, to waste it, to ground that power, unload it, from that simple crime, crime has evolved into more complex structures.
Wealth producers are convinced of the need to fight each other, to conflict with each other, instead of competing with each other, and the complexity of this process can be narrowed down to an easy, and obvious, litmus test.
1. Competition is voluntary
2. Conflict is involuntary
Do you know that you are being had, do you know that you have a choice, are you powerless to avoid victimization?
Criminals know the secret, knowledge is power, and until the victims gain that power, uncover that secret, they will remain victims, and they will continue to send surplus wealth to those who use that power to perpetuate conflict, and to eliminate competition, and to ensure that power remains scarce, and that the scarce supply of power remains within the exclusive control of the criminals.
If that is news to you, and you see it now, like the sun rising on a new summer day, remember where you once were, because that place is where many other people are still, and getting from A to B requires much work, it is not something for nothing.
Knowledge does not arrive on a silver platter.
Liberty isn't purchased by abject obedience to falsehood; because, unfortunately, there are criminals among us, and many of them gave themselves the license to commit crime perpetually.
Liberty is a voluntary association, among those who do not resort to crime, as a means of "gaining liberty", by false construction of language, by excuse, by apology, by self-deceit, or by targeting victims with deceit, by threats of violence for failure to be subjected to injury, or by actual violence resulting in victimization of the innocent wealth producers who do manage to voluntarily associate.
What is the use of fighting between voluntary capitalists and voluntary socialists, compared to the necessity of all volunteers, all competitors, to work toward the avoidance of victimization, avoidance of contact to criminals, legal or otherwise?
In whose interest do people read from the script that says criminal capitalists are better than criminal socialists or visa versa?
I will return to the Real News report - seeking accurate data.
So these people actually use these things to justify whatever is convenient for them. You know, I mean, I just think this argument that government is always unsuccessful and the private sector always is successful--.
The fight is not between which criminals are the most effective at lying, cheating, torturing, mass murdering, and doing what ever is required to eliminate competition, and limit the production of power to level that ensures criminal control over scarce power.
That is the criminal fight. Are these guys criminals, asking each other which crime gang is the best crime gang? Who is the most benevolent dictator?
The fight is between voluntary producers of surplus wealth and the criminals who work to gain exclusive control over that surplus wealth.
If a person is holding a title, in an office, that has the name "Non-profit Government Public venture" on it, or if a person is holding a title, in an office, that has the name "Profit Private Business venture" on it, the success or failure of either isn't measured by the name plate. The success or failure is measurable as an increase or decrease in the quality of life divided by the cost of life, as an aggregate.
Person A succeeds when human life improves and human costs decrease.
Quality goes up.
Price goes down.
Person A succeeds at the expense of injuries to other people.
How can that be the measure of success, regardless of what label is stamped on the stationary?
How about the following two examples of competitors working toward success:
Competition for success
Competitor A produces a high quality and low cost money, and the rate of success is a measurable increase in the quality of life, an increase in the supply of surplus wealth, and the price, or cost, is measurable relative to the competition, whereby competitor B resorts to threats and violence as a means of eliminating competitor A.
If competitor B agrees to not resort to violence as a means of eliminating competitor A, then competitor B would be forced, by competition, to increase quality and lower cost, and thereby offer, voluntarily, the consumers a more competitive product.
Those two examples are examples of supposedly "socialistic" producers of money, or "government" money producers, and the challenge there is to introduce, and to offer, a competitor representing the capitalist group of monetary producers.
Such as:
The Liberty Dollar
Where is the capitalist forms of competitive money products that arise as a result of free market forces as free market competition forces quality up and price down?
Will a capitalist form of money, such as the Liberty Dollar, out compete, in a free market, the stamp script form of money, negative interest money, or the Islamic Finance form of money, no-interest money, or will some form of money not yet invented prove to be the most competitive, highest quality, and lowest cost money, if competition avoids elimination by criminal forces?
The whole capitalist dogma routine falls apart on the measure of the cost of money, actually currency, in seems to me, and that cost is also called monetary interest, interest is cost, interest is price, and interestingly enough, the vocal capitalists measure monetary interest as a benefit, not a cost, which begs the question: in whose interest is it to make purchasing power scarce, whose interest is it to make money scarce, whose interest is it to make currency scarce, on purpose, for profit?
CHANG: Yeah, there is that political [crosstalk] issue. But this is a political issue. It's not inherent in the government policy. You know. I mean--and especially in these days, when half the US financial companies are--I mean, that should have been technically bankrupt without this bailout, someone saying that private sector is better at pick winners, I mean, it's [crosstalk]
JAY: And aren't they picking winners with the banks is your point, obviously.
CHANG: Exactly.
JAY: Yeah.
CHANG: But, I mean, of course there is that political issue. You know, the bankers have captured the US government. And, yeah, they are putting pressure on the government to do things that suit them rather than their national interests.
Now they are getting down to the base, root, of the political economy power struggle between those who produce surplus wealth and those who steal it.
It matters not what label is on the stationary, if the power to control surplus wealth is purchased by way of willful deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence, then that is the destructive method, the criminal method, the method that makes power scarce, and the method that destroys competition, and therefore that is the method that renders the power to increase quality, and the power to lower cost, power-less.
The socialists, here, appear to ascribe to the falsehood whereby government is justifiably involuntary - obey or get out, pay taxes, or be punished - and as such it is principally criminal. From that principle there can only be more crime. That is the criminal method. I say that they appear to ascribe to, support, encourage, defend, the criminal method, because they illustrate criminal examples of socialism, and they do not clarify those examples as being criminal examples.
A wealth producer moving to one of those example places, illustrated by these people, would either be forced to pay taxes or forced to move out of the reach of that criminal government - yes or no?
The taxes collected by those criminal governments are powers that are used to reduce the total rate of power being produced, on purpose, and so as to eliminate competition - or not. Which is the case?
I am not familiar with the cases those people use as example illustrations; but I can quote their own words:
Singapore Airline, which is one of the most kind of highly rated airline companies in the world, is actually a fully state-owned enterprise. In the nearly 40 years of its operation, it has never made one penny of loss. In contrast, all the free enterprise American airline companies live on government subsidies.
What does "fully state-owned enterprise" mean?
What does "government subsidies" mean?
Where does the power to purchase in either case come from, where are the start up costs earned, how do the people producing the new airline service manage to gain the power to purchase, how do they get the credit needed, where does that power used to make the airline service originate from, as that power flows from the control of someone who has that power before that power is then controlled by the "fully state-owned enterprise" or the "American airline companies"?
Where does that power used in that investment originate from, before it is moved and then used in that investment; what is that process called?
Who controls the decision to move purchasing power from where that power was before that power went to those people running those air transport services?
Socialists appear to be claiming that "government" is a person, and this person, this entity known as "government" is credited with the good sense of moving scarce power from those who make it, the only place it can come from, to people who then produce air transport services.
High quality air transport services do not increase total wealth without integration within a larger network of cooperating, and competing social groups, within that connection of those many people. How is any single person's contribution to the increase of total wealth determined, and accounted for accurately?
What is that process, what is the name of that process; capitalism, socialism, meritocracy, what?
If the wealth producers, working in concert, do increase total wealth, measurably, and they do lower their transportation costs, measurably, then it is because the price of air transportation decreases; because lower air transportation costs lower the costs of producing everything that requires air transportation, therefore total surplus wealth increases, by that measure.
Who is credited with that decision to move power to that investment?
Government?
What ever happened to the person who made that decision, he, or she, or they decide by some process of decision, do they, or does he, or does she, not get the credit they deserve for making that decision?
If they get the credit, and socialism doesn't get the credit, and capitalism doesn't get the credit, how is that credit measured as that credit flows to those specific people who caused the lowering of transportation costs and thereby those people, by those decisions, and those actions, increase surplus wealth - how is their increase in credit accounted for accurately, and what is the name of that process?
The opposite is true. Who is blamed for failures caused by the American airlines whereby the American airline people produce lower quality air travel at higher prices? The corporation is blamed? The government is blamed for bailing out the corporation.
Governments, and corporations, are, in their own fine print, legal fictions.
People create legal fictions, and guns, and money, and pointed sticks, so as to succeed at doing what they want to succeed doing, with those tools. The tools don't do things. The tools can't get credit for doing things. The tools can't be held accountable for doing things. Crediting and blaming tools for the things people do is a choice, a false choice, and an irresponsible choice, and a method by which accountability is avoided, on purpose, for profit.
People profit, not governments.
Socialism can't take credit.
Capitalism can't take credit.
Socialism will never be held to account for anything - ever.
Capitalism will never be held to account for anything - ever.
Socialism will never realize the truth.
Capitalism will never confess true motive.
JAY: So join us for the next segment of 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism. And we're going to be talking about the idea that making the rich richer makes everybody else richer. Or does it? Thanks for joining us on The Real News Network.
I want to review that Real News report, when it is published, and I can say beforehand that surplus wealth cannot be allowed to pass a level that can no longer be controlled by the legal criminals, they must throttle down the production of surplus wealth to a level that is below a manageable level for them. If they fail that necessary work then the whole "trickle down economics" dogma will become real, a fact of life, as power will then flow to those who are best at making more power, and more power, and a new age will dawn, and the legal criminals will be out of business, because there will be so much power available to so many, that the victims will then have the power they need to survive well, and the former victims will have enough power to avoid victimization. Competition over how best to adapt to a power abundant world will include new methods, new inventions, of which mankind, generally, haven't even begun to imagine.
Increases in the quality of life and decreases in the cost of life is inversely proportional to increases in the effectiveness of legal crime, as the legal criminals use scarce power to make power scarce, and use scarce power to eliminate all competition where ever, and when ever competition arises.