The last family standing...

jcaut

BrettT1 wrote: »

I'm not voting because I have no freakin idea. lol

Wish more people would learn that lesson.

polktiger

SKsolutions wrote: »

ALL states should adopt and ratify NH's HRC6 proposed resolution. The first I saw of it was on a forum based in Ireland. Something is really wrong when you have to get current events from foreign sources.

Good luck, we tried that in SC about 150 years ago, and after revisionist history got done with it we now have the modern myth of Lincoln and the victor's herioc version of the war.

ND13

The revisionist are hard at work, today, in our children's history books.

Maybe I should move to Texas. I bet they'll protect their state to the tens. Plus it doesn't hurt to have all those AF bases and other military installations within their borders. And if someone were to break into my home(or in some cases my empty neighbor's home), I can feed them some lead and be a hero.

obieone

Disclaimer: I'm agnostic, but this is BS!!!!:mad:


http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-01098-R00-SB.htm

bobman1235

obieone wrote: »

Disclaimer: I'm agnostic, but this is BS!!!!:mad:


http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-01098-R00-SB.htm

Translation into non-legaleze?

obieone

bobman1235 wrote: »

Translation into non-legaleze?

The state legislature of CT is going to start DICTATING how the Catholic church runs THEIR affairs. The state is 'attempting' to anyway. The bill hasn't passed yet. But, the fact they're even trying is DISTURBING!

cnh

Can anyone say Martial Law!

cnh

Staff

Hello!

I'm new and I thought I'd wade in.

Be gentle?;)

The way I see it is that what is happening now in the US is a battle for control among elites to control the world economy using either of two systems of economics: the U of Chicago "Friedmanite" "Disaster Capitalism" method or the opposite end of the economic theory spectrum, the Keynesian approach.

This is just Disaster Capitalism coming to the US. It probably began with Pinochet and South America, and continued through "Solidarity" and the collapse of the Soviet Union. More recently there is/was Iceland.

Doom and gloom abounds so that the solutions that the elites come up with (regardless of whether they are "Right" or "Left") will be drastic measures sold as a fix for our problems, which will really mask the creation of an America where only the rich will have rights.

Obama is just the CEO of the American Corporatocracy, the US Government exists merely to facilitate the goals and wishes of multinationals.

cnh

Welcome to Club Polk and I do hope the guys will be 'gentle' though I can't guarantee that!

I understand where you are coming from and am very familiar with the logic of that argument. Though I think the situation has gotten a bit more 'complex' than that. Multinationals, themselves have lost any real control at this point and that's really scarey!

cnh

Staff

Thanks for the welcome.

It's undoubtedly more complex than that (yeah, I got a little carried away with my quotation marks), but for the sake of posting on a Polk Audio message board I think it sums things up.

As I tried to say, it is part of the methodology of Disaster Capitalism to make it seem as if things are out of control and 'scarey' so that the drastic solutions they come up with will meet little resistance in being applied towards fixing the problems that they themselves played a part in creating. Drastic solutions such as high unemployment, lowered wages and the dismantling of unions, to name a few.

I honestly believe that the Left v. Right stuff is BS for public consumption that distracts us from a ruling class of politicians and elitists who want to maintain power.

Just my $.02.

SKsolutions

Staff wrote: »

The way I see it is that what is happening now in the US is a battle for control among elites to control the world economy using either of two systems of economics: the U of Chicago "Friedmanite" "Disaster Capitalism" method or the opposite end of the economic theory spectrum, the Keynesian approach

I'll say welcome, and well put too.

If there is an antithesis to Keynes, it's Von Mises. Anyone following Keynes has a vested interest in extreme class stratification and wealth transfer from the bottom to the top. Friedman is more tolerable in this regard, but while his tax solution of 'starve the beast' sounds great, it's never been accomplished once in our history. The argument should be moot. Both schools' theories are based on having a mechanism in place that no longer exists -an operable free market. When the fed decides who the buyers and sellers are, control the costs of doing business, and is paid by those that are already entrenched, there is no free market to speak of. Throughout the whole mess, few are looking at the Austrian school, even though they predicted this. . . because to do so would be to admit that Keynes and Friedman failed. Also, there is no Corporate 'sponsorship' for this school of thought because it's not in their best interests, it's in ours.

Dennis Gardner

Both political sides are way more interested in power and pushing their policies regardless of the consequences. There is no middle ground when power is at hand.

In many instances the job losses are simply fat trimming, the housing bust was due to bad loan structures to those that had no business getting a home in the first place. The banking/stock/ hedge fund fall is from the free market being too free and government oversight incompetence. Blue chips poor performance is due to too much debt being carried by all in business with belief that the market will never crash again, since stop gaps were in place. They were wrong.

It is the perfect financial storm, so it will be deeper and longer than anyone wants, but once fixes are in place, the upside will be double digit growth for years on end.

Live within your means even if those means are smaller than ever and you will be ready when good times kick off again. Yes, they will come again......

Norm Apter

Staff wrote: »

...it is part of the methodology of Disaster Capitalism to make it seem as if things are out of control and 'scarey' so that the drastic solutions they come up with will meet little resistance in being applied towards fixing the problems that they themselves played a part in creating. Drastic solutions such as high unemployment, lowered wages and the dismantling of unions, to name a few.

Have you read Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine? I'm wondering if this school shares the same basic thesis or if the two can be distinguished and, if so, how.

BottomFeeder

Dennis Gardner wrote: »

Both political sides are way more interested in power and pushing their policies regardless of the consequences. There is no middle ground when power is at hand.

In many instances the job losses are simply fat trimming, the housing bust was due to bad loan structures to those that had no business getting a home in the first place. The banking/stock/ hedge fund fall is from the free market being too free and government oversight incompetence. Blue chips poor performance is due to too much debt being carried by all in business with belief that the market will never crash again, since stop gaps were in place. They were wrong.

It is the perfect financial storm, so it will be deeper and longer than anyone wants, but once fixes are in place, the upside will be double digit growth for years on end.

Live within your means even if those means are smaller than ever and you will be ready when good times kick off again. Yes, they will come again......

THANK YOU! Thanks for bringing the voice of reason, Dennis! Sheesh! Don't mean to flame anyone but man alive!, some of the theories floating in here are just nuts!
Take a chill pill everyone. Live within your means and let's ride this out together. We'll make it.

shack

Lots of BS has started floating in this thread....:rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

ND13 wrote: »

Domestic economic and social terrorism, political correctness(since when did the minority dictate laws/mandates) and the liberal media fear mongering is what's ruined the economy, period!!!

Now everyone has someone (other than the foreign religious zealots) that live right next door to hate. The poor hate the rich, the rich hate the poor, there really isn't a middle class left to speak of, so the former middle class hates both. The government just promotes this even further. Time to cut the federal government numbers and control and get back to state and local control of what's right for their own.

The bailout was never intended to help, neither administrations. Just another way to give the feds more control and take rights away from the people.

If were not careful, some states will be looking to secede when states like California's and other's economic crises start to affect other states, even more than they already have so far.

You think it's bad now, wait till GM and Chrysler fail. If you really don't believe it'll affect you, then you must be already profiting from the economic downturn, smart enough to have put your money anywhere but here, or are so wealthy that losing a few million/billion wouldn't put a dent in your wallet.

This coming from a Patriotic Veteran that's at his whit's end.

Don't get me wrong. I would never wish what has happened to my family on anyone, except those who have caused the situation in the first place. Let them get a taste of what they have wrought upon millions of families and businesses.

I only wish for the best for my fellow Polkies and friends.

Hmm..The rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer, no middle class. Is that not communism???

Halen

cnh

shack wrote: »

Lots of BS has started floating in this thread....:rolleyes:

Would that mean 'Business Sense'?

cnh

shack

cnh wrote:

Would that mean 'Business Sense'?

cnh

That would be NO.

cnh

halenhoang wrote: »

Hmm..The rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer, no middle class. Is that not communism???

Halen

Isn't everything Communism or Socialist these days? Seems like Gov't anything means that to a lot of people. Yet, as a friend of mine put it, all Gov'ts are redistrution systems of some kind? If they weren't what would be the need for them? You can redistribute money for military defense or just rely on voluntary militia? You can have an FDA or you can rely on the people who bring you your food to screen it. You can provide education for the masses or you can have them pay for it. And finally, you don't have to provide Social Security or Medicare for anyone if you eliminate Gov't. So why don't we just disband the U.S. Gov't and have a REAL Free Market system....Completely FREE!

Honestly, I don't follow a lot of kvetching these days. Such personal affronts so much passion and sometimes 'hate', where does 'all' of that name calling come from...is that America? Socialism vs. Capitalism. Come on.

It's a global crisis for godsake. Step back and take a deep breath. Let's get back to audio much of which is made in a Communist country these days for those who live in the Capitalist west....gee that sounds like a global economy!!

cnh

Staff

Norm Apter wrote: »

Have you read Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine? I'm wondering if this school shares the same basic thesis or if the two can be distinguished and, if so, how.

These definitions would seem to sum things up (from Wikipedia):

Keynesian economics (also called Keynesianism (pronounced /ˈkeɪnziən/, and Keynesian Theory), is a macroeconomic theory based on the ideas of 20th-century British economist John Maynard Keynes. It emphasizes the role of demand-side factors, as opposed to supply-side factors, in the determination of aggregate output. Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes, and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government, to stabilize output over the business cycle.

"The Friedman Doctrine":

The Friedman Doctrine is an idea proposed by economic theorist Milton Friedman, which states that a company's only responsibility is to increase its profits.

Friedman argued that a company should have no "social responsibility" to the public or society because its only concern is to increase profits for itself and for its shareholders. He wrote about this concept in his book Capitalism and Freedom. In it he states that when companies concern themselves with the community rather than focusing on profits, it leads to totalitarianism.

In the book, Friedman writes: "There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."[6]

The Friedman Doctrine is highly controversial. In Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine, Klein criticizes the theory.

Yes, I have read Naomi Klein's book, and as I read it the parallels between her theories on the Shock Doctrine and what is happening in the USA today became more ominous and startling.

Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner's bio is revealing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner

I believe the Shock Doctrine is being applied to the United States as we speak, with Keynesian tactics being employed to offset the past failures of Friedmanite tactics.

Staff

SKsolutions wrote: »

I'll say welcome, and well put too.

If there is an antithesis to Keynes, it's Von Mises. Anyone following Keynes has a vested interest in extreme class stratification and wealth transfer from the bottom to the top. Friedman is more tolerable in this regard, but while his tax solution of 'starve the beast' sounds great, it's never been accomplished once in our history. The argument should be moot. Both schools' theories are based on having a mechanism in place that no longer exists -an operable free market. When the fed decides who the buyers and sellers are, control the costs of doing business, and is paid by those that are already entrenched, there is no free market to speak of. Throughout the whole mess, few are looking at the Austrian school, even though they predicted this. . . because to do so would be to admit that Keynes and Friedman failed. Also, there is no Corporate 'sponsorship' for this school of thought because it's not in their best interests, it's in ours.

Thank you.

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that the free market does not in fact exist. Laissez-faire capitalism would result in the collapse of the entire System as it is presently constructed. What exists now is almost entirely a version or variation of "He who has the money makes the rules", which would include paying off Congresspersons and Senators in order to achieve those aims.

Well put by you.