The Obama Deception

CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I had a professor who wrote like you once.

Once...

Besides, I don't think we know enough about primitive cultures to determine their relative respect or disrespect for private property and their relative socialist or capitalist natures. 'Capital' as it stands has existed since man produced something not with an eye to eating it or satisfying some other immediate want with it, but toward the future and how it would help him produce more or more easily what he needed to fulfill those more immediate needs. In the strictest sense once man realized he need not look for sharp stones and sticks but could make them himself, capital accumulation began. It wasn't very long lived capital, but it was there. Replacement costs can be a bitch.

Indeed, the so-called "pre-capital" societies are appreciably more difficult to categorically analyze than contemporary societies: while the means of value production - mostly agrarian in nature - were most certainly collectivized, such means were subordinated to the wishes of the highest class strata, and; contrarily, currency also existed as a relativizing commodity, but was most primarily a method of exchange, rather than a value creator itself [vis-a-vis being so-called, "money capital", with the technical-rational taxation systems adherent thereto].

In compounding this confusion, however, the more advanced classics [see: Indo-American, Egyptian, Romans and so forth] most certainly had interest and tax systems, necessarily positioning capital [whether in money-capital or private property] as the determinant form of self-enlarging value - the key characterizer of capitalistic economies. So, as you have said, characterizing all pre-industrial societies with one broad, negative stroke may be presumptuous; however, I did not - the word "derivative" was meant to precisely encompass a wide spectra of social organizations that, ultimately, can be considered in regard to their determinant method of value production in an aggregate fashion, and the relative position to capitalism or socialism *.

It appears you have analyzed the distribution of the social capital as the primary determiner of an economic system's label, where I am more primarily concerned with its mode of production; and, further, you seem to be extrapolating the microscopic perspective of exchange to the macroscopic context.

* I say aggregate as value production, distribution and exchange on the level of the individual firm involves microscopic imperatives such as coercion, power, status and so forth that obfuscate their nature; as a result, modes of value production must be considered in the aggregate.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I had a professor who wrote like you once.

Once...
He must have been an asshole.

Besides, I don't think we know enough about primitive cultures to determine their relative respect or disrespect for private property and their relative socialist or capitalist natures.
True, and one can certainly make the case I was relativizing [or projecting] based on our current knowledge.

'Capital' as it stands has existed since man produced something not with an eye to eating it or satisfying some other immediate want with it, but toward the future and how it would help him produce more or more easily what he needed to fulfill those more immediate needs. In the strictest sense once man realized he need not look for sharp stones and sticks but could make them himself, capital accumulation began. It wasn't very long lived capital, but it was there. Replacement costs can be a bitch.
Also true, though I was attempting to differentiate between primitive capital and "money-capital" [as examples], in order to further differentiate between a primitive commodity-producing economy and an advanced capitalist economy, respectively.

As well, while capital is capital, and something produced for use is 'capital' in any situation, it is the intention of producing the commodity which truly delineates the form of an economy; the man producing sticks to ease his own harvest to eat, and the man producing harvest to exchange for money-capital and/or goods, are engaging in different 'capital-based' economic activities.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Also true, though I was attempting to differentiate between primitive capital and "money-capital" [as examples], in order to further differentiate between a primitive commodity-producing economy and an advanced capitalist economy, respectively.

As well, while capital is capital, and something produced for use is 'capital' in any situation, it is the intention of producing the commodity which truly delineates the form of an economy; the man producing sticks to ease his own harvest to eat, and the man producing harvest to exchange for money-capital and/or goods, are engaging in different 'capital-based' economic activities.
You see, that's where I disagree. I think attempts to differentiate the two on a fundamental level are a mistake. What's going on now is the same thing that went on thousands of years ago. We're just much better at it so it's more complex. And, I think the issue of money has been clouded enormously.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
You see, that's where I disagree. I think attempts to differentiate the two on a fundamental level are a mistake. What's going on now is the same thing that went on thousands of years ago. We're just much better at it so it's more complex. And, I think the issue of money has been clouded enormously.
Agree to disagree, as I feel they are different in particulars, if not in fundamentals.

You feel I have clouded the descriptions of money-capital, or that money itself has been technically-rationally clouded?
 

dpfisher

Guest
This video is a little far fetched, but a second revolution is not too far away. We no longer live within a constitutional government. It's apparent from your last two posts that you have no idea what's happening right under your nose.
This will never happen unless he forces a collapse of reality TV or something. I hate to be the guy to say it but BREAD AND CIRCUSES and all that.
 

dpfisher

Guest
wrong, they were enough to take away from any other content, because I stopped watching it at that point. I hate self aggrandizing or trying to romanticize to try and make things seem more important. Its called "lying", and the rest of what you say looses credibility at that point.
Absolutely. So many things were taken so far out of context it's not worth watching. You just risk confusing something the movie presented with facts later and looking like an idiot. I don't like Obama one bit, but this movie is worthless.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Agree to disagree, as I feel they are different in particulars, if not in fundamentals.

You feel I have clouded the descriptions of money-capital, or that money itself has been technically-rationally clouded?
Money itself. As in the green **** we pass around in the US is not money. Money is and always will be a commodity or a claim to a commodity. Fiat notes are and always will be a totally different animal.
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Money itself. As in the green **** we pass around in the US is not money. Money is and always will be a commodity or a claim to a commodity. Fiat notes are and always will be a totally different animal.
Agreed. You have to love the remittance of the Bretton-Woods accord.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Agreed. You have to love the remittance of the Bretton-Woods accord.
BW was a **** standard. Better than nothing, but still a **** standard. If it had been worth a damn it would have capped the inflation of fiat notes to gold production so there could never be claims outstanding to nonexistant property. Limiting redemption to central banks only meant you're a bit more likely to be dealing with people who want to play the game of inflation.
 
BodyWizard

BodyWizard

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
So banks are constantly giving handouts?
Dude, in the post you're quoting, you called it a "LOAN" (your caps) - if that's *not* what banks are for, tell me now, 'cause in that case, I've been doing it wrong.

So make up your mind.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Dude, in the post you're quoting, you called it a "LOAN" (your caps) - if that's *not* what banks are for, tell me now, 'cause in that case, I've been doing it wrong.

So make up your mind.
actually it was a precoffee post :D and I missed what you wote and read it as asking the feds for a handout, not a hand out of the hole :)

I'm just irritated at the enormous number of people who do call what the auto industry wants a handout. They want a bridge loan to survive a rough economic time, which they intend to pay pack. the banks wanted a handout, they said "buy these toxic assets from us at more than what they are worth today, because they are worth nothing today", which is quite different
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I'm just irritated at the enormous number of people who do call what the auto industry wants a handout. They want a bridge loan to survive a rough economic time, which they intend to pay pack.
At what interest? Where do the initial funds come from? Once more, a LOAN is when a bank takes the money you and I voluntarily decided to save for three years at 3% and lends it out for three years at 5%. Asking the government for something to be given to you at below market price and despite availability is asking for a handout. Giving it back eventually doesn't change that nature since the opportunity cost is already incurred and can't be taken back. The money they pay back at lower than market interest will be worth less than what was given to them. The difference is your handout.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
At what interest? Where do the initial funds come from? Once more, a LOAN is when a bank takes the money you and I voluntarily decided to save for three years at 3% and lends it out for three years at 5%. Asking the government for something to be given to you at below market price and despite availability is asking for a handout. Giving it back eventually doesn't change that nature since the opportunity cost is already incurred and can't be taken back. The money they pay back at lower than market interest will be worth less than what was given to them. The difference is your handout.
Again, then our whole financial system is based on handouts given governmental guarantees of savings accounts, mortgages, etc, and so this is no different than any other loan. Where does it say that they asked for a no interest loan? I believe it was structured as 6% IIRC
 
Mulletsoldier

Mulletsoldier

Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
BW was a **** standard. Better than nothing, but still a **** standard. If it had been worth a damn it would have capped the inflation of fiat notes to gold production so there could never be claims outstanding to nonexistant property. Limiting redemption to central banks only meant you're a bit more likely to be dealing with people who want to play the game of inflation.
It was certainly a broken system, but its remittance [among other things such as the so-called, "Nixon Shock" and OPEC Embargo] led to the monetarist ideologues placing a firm grip on our bank system, leading us to the muddied fiat situation we reside in currently.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Again, then our whole financial system is based on handouts given governmental guarantees of savings accounts, mortgages, etc, and so this is no different than any other loan. Where does it say that they asked for a no interest loan? I believe it was structured as 6% IIRC
No... Then it is not different than any other handout. Which, incidentally, is why the US is seriously ****ed right now. You can't keep giving handouts to people when you've no supply left to draw on, and an economy can't survive on handouts anyway.

I asked at WHAT interest. The point being the government can't do anything but ape market prices. The 'interest' they're charging is not a reflection of market conditions, it's what some government pratt decided to charge them. and will it be enough to cover all the administrative costs of gathering that money from the tax payers and dispersing it and whatever else comes along with this handout? Answer: likely not.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
No... Then it is not different than any other handout. Which, incidentally, is why the US is seriously ****ed right now. You can't keep giving handouts to people when you've no supply left to draw on, and an economy can't survive on handouts anyway.

I asked at WHAT interest. The point being the government can't do anything but ape market prices. The 'interest' they're charging is not a reflection of market conditions, it's what some government pratt decided to charge them. and will it be enough to cover all the administrative costs of gathering that money from the tax payers and dispersing it and whatever else comes along with this handout? Answer: likely not.
Again, you ignore the fact that any savings account, and most loans are also guaranteed by the government. The reason GM went directly to the government was because no bank would give them a loan right now due to the rest of the financial situation, but if the federal government were willing to guarantee repayment any bank WOULD give them the loan.

Your mortgage is no less a handout then, assuming you have one.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
It was certainly a broken system, but its remittance [among other things such as the so-called, "Nixon Shock" and OPEC Embargo] led to the monetarist ideologues placing a firm grip on our bank system, leading us to the muddied fiat situation we reside in currently.
The path less travelled or the one well trodden, they both lead to the same pile of ****. No government in history hasn't eventually taken over and tried to massively manipulate the money supply. First they seize the mint and control over weights and measures, then the production of money substitutes, then and finally, goodbye to the commodity standard.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Again, you ignore the fact that any savings account, and most loans are also guaranteed by the government.
No I don't. In fact that's kind of the point of this statement: "Which, incidentally, is why the US is seriously ****ed right now. You can't keep giving handouts to people when you've no supply left to draw on, and an economy can't survive on handouts anyway."

The reason GM went directly to the government was because no bank would give them a loan right now due to the rest of the financial situation, but if the federal government were willing to guarantee repayment any bank WOULD give them the loan.
If repayment is guaranteed who the **** wouldn't get a loan? That's sort of the point you see, and a major reason why we're in this ditch to begin with. Kind of like giving mortgages to homeless people because the government is a silent cosigner, ya know? But I guess more of the same bullshit will lead to prosperity this time instead of a cluster ****.

Your mortgage is no less a handout then, assuming you have one.
Exactly. That is the problem, not the solution. And right now thanks to previous meddling genuine credit is hard to come by and high priced. The issuance of more easy credit is not going to solve a problem that was created by too much easy credit. You get the financial industry drunk on the **** until it tears up the bar on some ****ing bender leaving a shitload of damage in its wake, and your solution is now to give the same whiskey to those who were injured to get them drunk too? Nice plan.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
So long as we're agreeing that other than scale of dollars the difference between the GM loan and your or my mortgage is minimal, then sure :D

Interestingly enough, economic studies were done when this first started that showed a cost to the US government of over $30 billion in the next 2 years if GM were to close.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
So long as we're agreeing that other than scale of dollars the difference between the GM loan and your or my mortgage is minimal, then sure :D

Interestingly enough, economic studies were done when this first started that showed a cost to the US government of over $30 billion in the next 2 years if GM were to close.
Economic studies by dipshits. Cut government spending by $30 billion over two years, problem solved.
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
Bankruptcy - Social Security Stunner; Bankruptcy of Nation Moved Up Several Years - Apr. 1, 2009 | Blogs at Chris Martenson - Bankruptcy, Government, Social Security, US


Obama is talking tough with the Big Three, even letting on that the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler is a very real possibility and may happen soon.

Since these are bankrupt companies, I suppose this makes a certain amount of sense, leaving aside the perplexing silence on why a similar approach is not being taken with insolvent banks.

I guess it's possible that manufacturing paper profits is now “more American” than fashioning real goods out of hard materials.

But it goes further than this. The current administration might as well be worrying about the fact that the US government itself is hurtling towards bankruptcy.

Not only are debts exploding - moving smartly past “unsustainable” and into “ruinous” - but revenues (tax receipts) are falling like a rock.

Yesterday it was reported that the difference between Social Security income (taxes) and outlays (benefits payments), which is known in Washington-speak as “the SS surplus”, would shrink to zero next year.

The U.S. recession is wreaking havoc on yet another front: the Social Security trust fund. washingtonpost.com

"With unemployment rising, the payroll tax revenue that finances Social Security benefits for nearly 51 million retirees and other recipients is falling, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, the trust fund's annual surplus is forecast to all but vanish next year -- nearly a decade ahead of schedule -- and deprive the government of billions of dollars it had been counting on to help balance the nation's books. "

First of all, let’s clear something up. There is no such thing as the Social Security “Trust Fund”. A “trust fund” implies that there are funds held in trust somewhere. Instead the Social Security account consists of several 3-ring binders filled with government IOUs which will have to be repaid by taxpayers (surprise!).

Attached is a picture of Bush physically standing next to the entire SS “trust fund”.

You could replicate the entire thing with about a $300 shopping trip to Staples, unless you wanted the fancy locking cabinet too. Then you might have to expend closer to $700 in total.

In the chart found at the link note the extreme deterioration in surplus funds between the 2008 and 2009 forecasts

Investor's Business Daily: Surpluses For Social Security Are Drying Up

From a budget-busting perspective, last year where the US government had a $73 billion Social Security surplus to spend, this year it will be a paltry $16 billion and next year it will be a number indistinguishable from zero. It is hard to overstate the importance of this shift.

This means several things. Instead of $703 billion coming in over the next 10 years, the current (overly optimistic) projection calls for only $83 billion. This means at least another $620 billion in fresh borrowing will have to occur.

More importantly, this means that the United States eventual date with bankruptcy has been moved forward by about 8 years or so. It also means that instead of being some future problem, a few administrations down the road, it is a near certainty that the current administration will have to confront some very difficult funding decisions that will be forced by the inability to borrow enough to pay for everything.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. For those who question the wisdom of having troops stationed in 150+ countries the funding crisis will translate into reduced foreign troop levels. The constantly expanding budgets of federal agencies tasked with keeping track of average Americans will face stiffer competition.
 

Attachments

EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
dammit luther, you aren't allowed to say things that make sense and are correct. it doesn't fit your MO
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. For those who question the wisdom of having troops stationed in 150+ countries the funding crisis will translate into reduced foreign troop levels. The constantly expanding budgets of federal agencies tasked with keeping track of average Americans will face stiffer competition.
Actually it is a very bad thing. It isn't a bad thing if you have common sense and say, like a normal human being would, "Gee, I'm spending more than I should, so I should cut back a little here and there..." This is not how the government acts. The government will look at those troops, as it always has, as a means of capturing resources. In the old days when the debauchery was almost through and the treasuries dry the king just invaded another country and seized their assets to fund a new wave of partying. Look for the same measures to be taken here. The government is a consumer and a destroyer. It is also not going to merely accept its demise, and like any other organization or organism, will fight to survive.

Those troops are more likely to be used before they are to return home to add to the unemployment lines. Look for foreign policy to go hawkish as the domestic front collapses.
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
From Agora's 5min blog:

"As a snarky economic commentator -- really -- pictures like this are what dreams are made of: Berlusconi’s vintage moment of Italian overaffection… Medvedev’s uncomfortable “can’t believe you’re touching me” expression… Gordon Brown looks like he’s lost… both Asian representatives sticking to typically straight, honorable postures… Africa’s reprehensive (Meles Zenawi) off to the side, clearly an outsider… Saudi King Abdullah is looking awfully mischievous… and of course, our commander in chief, thumbs up and as confident as ever. If there is a picture out there that better captures the current state of global leadership, we haven’t seen it."
 

Attachments

EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
"If there is a picture out there that better captures the current state of global leadership, we haven’t seen it."
by that does he mean that they are about as valuable as leaders as tits on a bull?
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I made this this morning. Yes I was bored...
What do you mean "When?"? Haven't you gotten the point yet? The change he's talking about is well underway. Before economic policy was just reckless. Now it's changed. Now we're completely off the ****ing tracks and headed down hill.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
What do you mean "When?"? Haven't you gotten the point yet? The change he's talking about is well underway. Before economic policy was just reckless. Now it's changed. Now we're completely off the ****ing tracks and headed down hill.
really wasn't that big a change honestly. Bush screwed it all up his last year
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
What do you mean "When?"? Haven't you gotten the point yet? The change he's talking about is well underway. Before economic policy was just reckless. Now it's changed. Now we're completely off the ****ing tracks and headed down hill.
I understand that.

It was more of a joke than anything. I guess you aren't a fan of South Park. It was in one of the recent episodes. "The Coon"
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I understand that.

It was more of a joke than anything. I guess you aren't a fan of South Park. It was in one of the recent episodes. "The Coon"
I haven't watched TV for a long time, other than news. I have taken up watching that show House, but it's already getting too goofy for me to like too much. A cranky, doctor version of Jimmeny Cricket, oh yeah... Some hotties on the show though.

Anyway, Obama is about as disappointing as he could possibly be. He's just another lefty idiot. No where near as much fun as a righty idiot. At least they've got the tin foil hats and conspiracy theories going for them. All the lefties do is sit around and ensure a stifling political correctness is adhered to.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
really wasn't that big a change honestly. Bush screwed it all up his last year
The current state of American economics is a perfect argument for divorcing the state from education. Right and left, the only people who have any influece also don't have the slightest ****ing clue what they're talking about. I'm sure they're wonderful with mathematics, statistics, and modeling, they don't know **** about economics. They very idea that you can spend your way to prosperity is moronic, and yet they have no trouble believing it or selling the idea to retarded nits like Obama.
 

anabolicRyan1

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
It's true...
 

lutherblsstt

Guest
The Obama administration has allowed the investment bankster class to not only "virtually dictate the terms of their own rescue, but shape policy for the attempted recovery of the overall economy."

A former Wall Streeter is in charge of the federal auto industry task force that is bludgeoning Detroit's workers and management, while the Obama administration provides "open-ended, luxurious life support" to "its walking-dead, parasitical friends on Wall Street." Banks are scheduled to undergo a government "stress test" later this month, but it doesn't promise to be very stressful, since hardly anyone "expects the feds to flunk any of the big banks, or even to share the results of the stress test with the public."

http://media.libsyn.com/media/blackagendareport/20090401_gf_zombies.mp3
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Does this surprise anyone? The whole point of The Fed and FDIC is to save the banker's asses at tax payer expense. It seems every time this becomes apparent, no matter how loudly or long people have been screaming it from every roof top, people are bemused and even hurt by it. I really don't get it.
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
At least they've got the tin foil hats and conspiracy theories going for them. All the lefties do is sit around and ensure a stifling political correctness is adhered to.
Oh we both know that the tin foil comes from EVERY angle.

i think the self imposed 9/11 is the best one to date... from the FARRRRR left.

Adams

PS... I voted Ron Paul... the only sensible candidate.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Yeah, but 9/11 truthers are fairly new and not that good at what they do.
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Yeah, but 9/11 truthers are fairly new and not that good at what they do.
They are as old as the day after 9/11. I do agree... they are not good at what they do.

Now where is SWG when you need him? :D

Adams

Now on with the tea parties!
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
They are as old as the day after 9/11. I do agree... they are not good at what they do.

Now where is SWG when you need him? :D

Adams

Now on with the tea parties!
Will you be in ATL? I've considered going, but I think I'll be supporting the local ones instead.
 

anabolicRyan1

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
It's funny... I just read that Ron Paul is the most internationally popular congressman ever.

That says a lot.
 

Similar threads


Top