New World Order



So...can anybody argue that pure capitalism is not self-destructive?
I can.

With the accumulation of wealth always going into a smaller and smaller number of hands, doesn't this erode the purchasing power of the working class along with their faith in the capitalist system?
In capitalism, there are no classes. Also, the accumulation of wealth into smaller and smaller numbers of hands is what happens under socialism, not capitalism.

Since there is no unregulated capitalist system operating (that I am aware of) I guess it's just theory, but it seems to hold true, and inevitably lead to more regulation in an attempt to reign it in.
There is regulation in a free market. Free choice. It is the most honest, egalitarian and powerful form of regulation available.

btw - I'm not espousing Marx (we know communism doesn't work), just attributing that theory to him because I think it was his and I'm too lazy to research it. He probably stole the theory from someone else, but it seems to hold true, and I would argue that socialism (and regulations) is the result of governments trying to control capitalism in an attempt to prevent it from eating itself.
I know you weren't arguing for Marxism. :)

The state doesn't try to control capitalism from self-destruction. They try to control capitalism to gain power for themselves without competing in the market. They create the regulation that creates monopolies, they create the redistribution which undermines property rights.

The only societies where poor people can become rich, are societies where the individual can earn a wage, and choose (for themselves) how to invest it. The reason why socialist societies stagnate, is that the incentive to save and produce is diminished by the system itself (barriers to entry aka regulation, and taxes aka incentives against innovation and production).

The planner myth which is the base of socialism has been refuted many times. It is impossible for a central authority to regulate or plan a complex economy because they can never have better information than the sum of all of the individual market actors within that economy.

That is why the FED cannot (and does not) accomplish its mission. It can try to manipulate incentives by creating and destroying credit, but it cannot control the flow of credit to where it is needed in an economy, because the economy is not static. As soon as a decision is made, conditions have already changed. Only the vendors and consumers, savers and investors, entrepreneurs and manufacturers on the ground, are most aware of the latest needs and conditions in an economy. By the time that information is relayed to a central authority, it is already stale.

The justification for regulation is completely dishonest. It only serves to empower some people over others.
 
In capitalism, more profit produces more opportunity to reinvest, which leads to more profit which leads to...in other words the rich get richer. This is not just a saying, but a provable point. In capitalism, wealth is accumulated into a smaller and smaller group of hands. They have no incentive to redistribute their own wealth, other than for tax purposes. In socialism the government attempts to forcibly redistribute some of that wealth so I can't see how that would lead to the accumulation of wealth into fewer hands.

Also, in capitalism there are certainly classes. There are the haves, and the have-nots. With vast wealth accumulated into fewer hands barriers to entry are raised in order for firms or individuals to block competition. This is why we have laws against monopoly's because they lead to inefficiencies. In unregulated capitalism we would have monopolies controlling all markets as the richest would run at a loss in order to force their competition out of business.
 
In capitalism, more profit produces more opportunity to reinvest, which leads to more profit which leads to...in other words the rich get richer. This is not just a saying, but a provable point. In capitalism, wealth is accumulated into a smaller and smaller group of hands. They have no incentive to redistribute their own wealth, other than for tax purposes. In socialism the government attempts to forcibly redistribute some of that wealth so I can't see how that would lead to the accumulation of wealth into fewer hands.

Also, in capitalism there are certainly classes. There are the haves, and the have-nots. With vast wealth accumulated into fewer hands barriers to entry are raised in order for firms or individuals to block competition. This is why we have laws against monopoly's because they lead to inefficiencies.

Got that right. Nobody has adequately defended the destruction of capitalism by capitalist entities.
 

Officials with G20 security released the following statement to Raw Story and other media outlets:

“Military members supporting the G20 Summit work with local law enforcement authorities but do not have the authority to make arrests. The individuals involved in the 9/24/09 arrest which has appeared online are law enforcement officers from a multi-agency tactical response team assigned to the security operations for the G20. It is not unusual for tactical team members to wear camouflaged fatigues. The type of fatigues the officers wear designates their unit affiliation.

Prior to the arrest, the officers observed this subject vandalizing a local business. Due to the hostile nature of the crowd, officer safety and the safety of the person under arrest, the subject was immediately removed from the area.”

G20 Security “Officials” Admit to kidnapping protestor but deny it was military : Federal Jack
 
Any NOFX fans out there?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR1NPFXerk4]YouTube - NOFX - The Marxist Brothers[/ame]
 
In capitalism, more profit produces more opportunity to reinvest, which leads to more profit which leads to...in other words the rich get richer.
So when you invest, is profit guaranteed? Do no rich people lose fortunes, and do no poor people make it big on the merit of their management, hustle and skills? How do you explain yourself homestyle?

This is not just a saying, but a provable point.
It is a cliche. There is no proof of this being a consequence of capitalism. It is a consequence of fascism / corporatism / state capitalism, but it has nothing to do with free market capitalism. I would need some explanation of how profits are assured in a competitive system.

In capitalism, wealth is accumulated into a smaller and smaller group of hands.
That is not capitalism. We're talking about two different things. We don't have capitalism. All appeals to what you see now, is not an argument against capitalism, it is an argument for capitalism.

They have no incentive to redistribute their own wealth, other than for tax purposes.
Sure they do. They invest and create jobs, they consume the wealth they have accumulated. The government doesn't grow the economy with taxes, investors grow it with capital deployment. Taxes are a disincentive to produce, profit is an incentive to invest.

In socialism the government attempts to forcibly redistribute some of that wealth so I can't see how that would lead to the accumulation of wealth into fewer hands.
Because the power to redistribute never leads to egalitarian distribution. What happened in Russia? Oligarchy. What has happened in the west? Domination by multi-national corporations.

Where socialism has not completely impoverished people, it has always protected the elite who manage the redistribution.

Also, in capitalism there are certainly classes. There are the haves, and the have-nots. With vast wealth accumulated into fewer hands barriers to entry are raised in order for firms or individuals to block competition.
Again, this is not capitalism. Regulation is a barrier to entry. It raises the entry costs to compete, and protect the established interests. This is why so many corporations and their lobbyists write the regulation for their industry. Even Marx understood that the state was used by these people to consolidate and protect their own power.

This is why we have laws against monopoly's because they lead to inefficiencies.
No, the state has always created monopolies through regulation and licensing. The first monopolies were grants by the King to be the exclusive provider to the kingdom for some particular good or service.

I suggest you watch these to understand what monopoly is and is not.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M"]YouTube- Anti-Trust and Monopoly (with Ron Paul)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2HXyfe_tCE"]YouTube - The Myth of Natural Monopoly (by Thomas DiLorenzo)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwH8unDcdMY"]YouTube - Monopoly and Competition[/ame]

In unregulated capitalism we would have monopolies controlling all markets as the richest would run at a loss in order to force their competition out of business.
This is really poor economic reasoning.

How would monopolies control all markets in unrestrained competition?

If the richest would run at a loss, they would be less rich and benefit consumers through lower prices.

As soon as they raised prices again, they would invite competitors into the marketplace to compete with them on price. That's how markets and the price system works.

Capitalism is the system where prices are driven towards 0% profit through rigorous competition and innovation. Socialism via the state and regulation is a system where the profits of some are protected through diminished competition.
 
@guerilla: Good to see you still railing against bubbleheaded keyneseism and other econowonk ostrich garbage.

Listen to this man, people. He has his eyes open wide, and his mind lubed for independent thought, not regurgitated ideologue soundbites.
 
I realize pasting 3 long videos is sort of a conversation killer, so if there is only one to watch (I just rewatched it), it is this one

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M]YouTube - Anti-Trust and Monopoly (with Ron Paul)[/ame]

It's a crash course in the economic effects of government regulation in under 30 minutes. It is impossible to watch it and not be a lot smarter for the experience.
 
Guerilla, your arguments are Utopian and fail to take into account human nature. That was the same mistake made by Marx and his homies and why Communism never worked. It looks great in a textbook, but doesn't work that way in practice.
 
Guerilla, your arguments are Utopian and fail to take into account human nature.
Do you know how many times I have heard this strawman? :rolleyes:

Can you explain what the Utopian fallacy I have advanced is?

That was the same mistake made by Marx and his homies and why Communism never worked.
No, the reason why communism doesn't work, is because it is not logically consistent.

It looks great in a textbook, but doesn't work that way in practice.
This is an extension of the strawman. You're asserting without proof.

I didn't propose anything Utopian or theoretical. I merely demonstrated that your Utopian regulation cannot and does not work.

Consider that by calling my position Utopian, you are asserting that the market is Utopian and voluntary action does not work because it is "great in a textbook but doesn't work (that way) in practice".

You might want to rethink that.
 
Oh wow. I had no idea there were so many well informed and well spoken conspiracy theorist believers here. I'm impressed. Although some of you may want to keep your thoughts to yourself from now on, because they do make you sound a bit nuts. But then again, its good to be a bit nuts I suppose, gives you perspective. :)

I'm sure many of you were wondering why I made this thread to begin with. It wasn't to increase page views or traffic or to divert your attention from something else. It was far more conniving than that..

I'd like you all to know that much of this thread was a bit of a social experiment. I purposely worded it the way I did in my original post to draw out that "feeding frenzy" blast of difference in opinion in a short period of time, while referencing things you know very little about. A lot of the videos, links, and texts that have been quoted in this thread are not fact at all, but instead just an outside theory of what others, some brilliant in their own right, THINK they are on the right track to "figuring it all out".

But alas, they are still just opinions. Because until someone who officially represents these 'secret societies' or 'demonic Jewish neo-con Zionist blah blah god knows what control freak elitists with their unlimited wealth of dollars (am I missing anymore names?)' comes out and says THIS IS THE PLAN, we're all just a bunch of guessing lunatics ourselves, peering in from the outside, trying to make sense of something that we don't have many facts on in the first place! :338:

Will there be a representative someday who comes out and lays the plans out for all to see from the super secret groups and think tanks? I'd like to think so, but I don't know for sure, and neither do any of you, so what's the point of trying to figure it out anyway if we have no real control over the outcome to begin with?? You'll probably just end up driving yourselves just one step closer to insanity, and how does that effect your day to day life anyway? Does "figuring it all out" really make your life better? I don't think so. It doesn't, but it sure is easy and convenient to put blame on things we don't understand.

You can consider me part of "them". I won't deny it and I don't think I ever have, its just no one has ever asked until just the other day. It is in my opinion that the New World Order theory is something that humanity will eventually accept, thrive and likely look back and wonder why people were so hesitant to see it as a solid new platform to build upon. I think the big reason why there is so much unrest about it is because as humans we ultimately fear what we don't understand. The reason why most people don't understand it though is because it hasn't been properly disclosed or explained in-depth, so the mob effect goes into high gear and that's where the "evil plans" and conspiracy theories thrive.

It actually makes a lot of sense in the grand scheme of things. I don't think all of the ideas behind it are great or even doable and logistically speaking its a nightmare. We're human after all, we will always be flawed and will always make mistakes, but we're also really good at learning from them (after a few tries of course), adapting to change so it fits our way of life, to cater to what we consider a good way of living.

Just to lightly touch up on this... we are all apart of the grand Capitalism game, which is really exciting to watch and be apart of as you know. We're all business people here, so we're playing it. Its what keeps us entertained and driven. Its not a bad thing either. Its the combination of what happens when you give people too much power and money combined and only one lifetime to try and accomplish a game that, well, never ends. Its got nothing to do with which religion is right or wrong, or which country is good or bad, its just our modern way of life of sorts.

The whole scope of this topic in its entirety is, in a word, insane.

Its insane to try to understand all of it, in full depth, from a few forum posts, or from a radio show, a documentary (almost always one sided, cmon now..) or even from a few meetings with people involved, but I've been around this stuff for a very long time now, and I can promise you that its all in our best interest to accept the changes that will eventually come our way, and its silly to put blame on one group, one person, one religion or one country because overall, its just human nature to want to win, conquer and control.

...of course there is also a likely chance that all of this is total bullshit and just one big joke to which I'm just fucking with you because I'm a bit twisted to begin with.... But you'll never know for sure!!! :321:
 
I'm sure many of you were wondering why I made this thread to begin with.
I'm pretty sure most people assumed it was to see if anyone was still paying attention after NickyGate.

WRT to the rest of your post, are you doing hard drugs?
 
20krnfn.jpg



who cares. it's nothing you can do about it. yes, the FED is controlled.