Regulation: You’re the Sucker in This Game

Posted by on Jun 24, 2012 in American Economy, Dollars & Sense, Economy, End of Capitalism, Free Thinkers, Hard to Believe, In the News, Media Ignored, Missed the Point, Regulation, Suckered, Truth & Lies | 0 comments

“If, after the first twenty minutes, you don’t know who the sucker at the table is, it’s you.”  ~David Levien and Brian Koppelman, Rounders

Leave a pile of cash on the sidewalk. Do you expect the money to be there years later? 

Reckless monetary policy essentially dumped piles of cash on the sidewalk. Even honest businessmen are tempted to grab some when they see the pile dwindling and no one being held accountable. Most of us didn’t grab a handful because we are too ethical…or was it because no one told us where the cash pile was?

What happens when the sidewalk cash disappears? Do you think licensing, bonding, and regulating everyone that uses sidewalks is the answer? What a ridiculous solution! It’s amazing that every egghead that spews such idiocy isn’t laughed out of the public eye. A blue ribbon panel of know-it-all regulators cannot change human nature. The commonsense solution: stop leaving money on the sidewalk.

In 2002, Robert Blumen summed up the effect of the activities of Fannie and Freddie on the housing market and the systemic risk and foresaw a coming bailout. He was not alone in predicting the crisis and identifying it’s cause before it happened [accurate public predictions before the crisis]. Those people were silenced through ridicule and scorn.

The U.S. Economy is a game, and that game is rigged. First came the loose money supply, which was dumped into the housing market. Of course you knew this and wisely invested in high return mortgage backed securities, right? Yeah, me too… most of us missed that government sanctioned money grab. Not to worry, there were plenty of Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, and government insiders that capitalized on the windfall.

What about the risk you ask? Forget about it, those that created the game can manipulate the best government their money can buy to bail them out. Market research indicates the suckers (me and you) will fall in lock step when the phrase “economic collapse” is thrown about freely. Trillions in wealth has disappeared (from me and you), but the priviledged few that engineered the game have retained their wealth. Henry Paulson amassed a fortune estimated around $700 million while running Goldman Sachs, he kept every penny and even cashed out tax-free by becoming the Treasury Secretary. Henry Paulson is one of the many insiders that is both Wall Street and government. It’s probably a much better investment to become the government instead of buying it.

So now your thinking: “Let’s regulate them!” Of course you’re thinking that, we all are. The idea has been repeatedly broadcast by every major media outlet in the world. Dr. Herbert Krugman’s effective frequency (repetition of an idea) ensures that regulation is always our first thought, often our only thought. The people that engineered the crisis have been involved in every step, sat at every policy council, and even directed the Fed response. This con has been performed in the glare of the public spotlight. Luckily for them, we are suckers – plus those guys are kinda boring.

The insiders are pushing regulation. Of course they are, regulation protects the insiders from competition (try to start a banking home business). Regulation centralizes the power, the resources, and the money. It’s much easier to buy political power when it’s all concentrated in one place. Regulation didn’t protect you from the monetary policy that lead to the mortgage-backed-securities-game that siphoned $50,000 in lost wealth from every Family in America. According to numbers issued by the Federal Reserve: families’ median net worth fell almost 40% between 2007 and 2010. The suckers always foot the bill (this last point was not mentioned in the Fed report).

Who caused the crisis? Fat cats and government. Who have we given the authority to fix the problem? Fat cats and government. Why? Because they told us to.

Wait a minute, let’s give reason a try. Finance is the most heavily regulated industry in the world, and pretty much always has been. Every collapse, bubble, hiccup, con, and fraud that comes out of the world of finance has led to more and more regulation. Each time government fails, they are rewarded with more money and more power.

So what should we do? I don’t know, I doubt anyone knows – even if they say otherwise. There’s just one obvious next step: ignore what the insiders and their government tells us to do. The federal government appears to be bought and paid for by special interests.

Reverse the flow of wealth and power back to the people. An unregulated economy and finance sector is sure to steal from people now and then – but when they do, it will be for hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of dollars. The heavily regulated finance sector stole TRILLIONS from us. It wasn’t the first time, it won’t be the last – as long as we continue to do what we’re told.

No tags for this post.
Read More

Liberalism: A Mental Disability?

Posted by on Feb 6, 2011 in Dollars & Sense, Economy, End of Capitalism | 20 comments

The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy.
- Milton Friedman

Liberal thinking just doesn’t make sense…

Liberals will actually take the time to block Fox News from their cable or satellite channels.  Why?  Is an opposing view so offensive that it must be shunned even at the cost of more choice?  Why wouldn’t a liberal want to know what the other point of view is?  How can you learn and grow if you refuse to allow your points of view to be challenged?

Liberals will tell you Wallstreet is ruining America.  Then quote Wallstreet elite when they are trying to convince you the stimulous is working.  A liberal regime will hire Wallstreet elite to control the treasury.  Wallstreet and government are so intertwined it is difficult to untangle the mess they have made.  If “Change you can believe in…” meant more Wallstreet control of government – Obama kept that promise.  If Wallstreet is ruining America, why would a liberal government integrate them further into positions of vast power?

Do liberals really want an improved standard of living for all Americans?  The answer here can only be: “No”.  Any rational look at the wealth of nations and standards of living will clearly demonstrate less government builds wealth for all.  Liberals should be clear – they want equality over actual quality.  Yes, we can all live a somewhat economically equal existance, but it will be a low standard.  The upper middle class in the Soviet Union was allowed a 2 bedroom apartment and public transportation.  The lower middle class in America has 3 bedrooms and 2 cars!  Yes, the super rich would live a lifestyle far in excess of the lowest rungs.  However, even the lowest rungs will have food, shelter, and most importantly:  the opportunity to succeed.

Liberals seem to spit in the face of logic when it comes to results.  Obama set expectations for what the stimulous would do and not do.  Unemployment was not supposed to go over 8% if we approved the stimulous.  Unemployment has exceeded 8% even using the ridiculously understated US Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers.  Most economists examing the data are arriving at figures 50% higher.  So what is the logical solution?  It’s obvious to rational people that the stimulous did not deliver as promised, try the opposite – give the money back to the people.  For liberals, the answer is “more of the same”.

Liberals claim to value science.  This might be news to liberals, but science and science fiction are two different things.  Science is a rigorous system of observation, testing, data analysis, and finally a conclusion.  How would that system apply to government?  Easy – reduce federal power.  Allow the states to test theories of government within their borders.  Winners and losers will quickly stand out.  Testing aggressive government programs by forcing the entire nation to adopt them is insanity, not science.  Dispite the massive consolidation of power, we do have some examples among the states that stand out.  Oregon has the highest unemployment in the nation – so should we copy what they are doing?  Liberals say “Yes!”  Oregon has the highest minimum wage, the federal government is going to force that wage on all of the states.  If liberals have decided to use science to destroy America, they are on the right track.  Recklessly experimenting on the entire population is a recipe for disaster.  Choosing the worst examples and emulating their programs nationwide seems to indicate a desire to create negative results.

Note to conservatives:  Don’t consider this post an endorsement of your bungling form of thinking.  After all, it was you idiots that screwed things up so bad that America thought voting in liberals was a rational idea.

Tags:
Read More

PARTISAN POLITICS – WHICH PARTY IS THE PROBLEM?

Posted by on Feb 12, 2010 in Free Thinkers | 3 comments

I am starting to become angry and extremely insulted by all of the talk of the bipartisan legislative tactics and the smoke & mirror stage shows of the progressive democrats in power. The Obama administration has been quite vocal about the bipartisan tactics in congress delaying the legislation issues he is trying to enact. Let’s look at the evidence. For the past year the democrats have had a super majority in both the house and the senate, which means they could pass any legislation without a single republican vote – if they can get their own party to agree. Is this partisan politics with the republicans holding up progress? The bickering has been all intra party for the democrats… But you never hear that, what we hear is the republicans are jamming up the President’s agenda.

A proverbial light at the end of the tunnel? Since the election in Massachusetts, the dems no longer have a super majority in the Senate. This means bipartisan agreement is required to pass legislation, they need at least 1 republican to sign. First up, the jobs bill. Both parties came to the table and wrote a bill agreeable to all parties and even had Obama’s support. Essentially guaranteed to pass. Sounds like we have made progress! With the shift change it seems the progressives have mellowed of their hard lines accepting input from both parties appeasing republicans and blue dog democrats. Right? WRONG. The democrats have now pulled the bipartisan bill from the table in favor of a bill they say is leaner. This came as a shock to republican senators who were unaware the change was coming. The republican senators are obviously irate over the tactic and now the status of the bill is uncertain. Without reviewing each bill thoroughly only seeing the highlights, one must assume that many of the provisions deleted were republican agenda items while the new provisions support the democratic agenda. Between the tactics and the changes in provisions, I wouldn’t be surprised if the republicans don’t jump on board. If this bill doesn’t pass will it be a result of partisan politics? Is this the republicans being unwilling to work with democrats? Or is this tactics by the dems who changed the rules mid-term?

If the democrats had no intention of passing bipartisan legislation then why go ahead with days of meetings to develop the original bill? Was it to put forward an appearance of bipartisanship because both parties were working on the bill? Is this to put the republicans on the spot saying they are blocking the jobs bill? Is this a bait and switch scam hoping Americans won’t realize the bill the republicans are balking is not the bill they helped co-write hoping for blowback on the party later? Who knows the reason – partisan politics is occurring by the leaders.

Congress was created as a check and balance on the executive branch; to send elected officials who were representative of the American people to enact legislation and vote on behalf of the American people. By definition there is supposed to be discussion, input and compromise from all parties so the best overall ideas are incorporated. This is designed to prevent a small radical group from making undesired legislative changes. Is that what you see is occurring? Or is a small radical group pushing through legislation most Americans do not want? Do you see fairness in the system or unscrupulous tactics and Congressmen being deceptive to push their agenda? Do you find this intolerable and frankly insulting to your intelligence? The sad news? If we do not do a better job of educating ourselves, our family and our friends the tactics will continue, the deception will continue and the American people will suffer.

No tags for this post.
Read More

INDOCTRINATION THROUGH EDUCATION TO SPREAD PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGY

Posted by on Feb 3, 2010 in Free Thinkers | 1 comment

I just heard this morning on Fox News that the North Carolina school system is considering changing it’s high school curriculum to teach current events and to stop teaching the founding fathers. I have not seen this by another news source but will continue to look to verify. The report said that they would continue to teach George Washington in elementary school but that high school history would teach only the period from 1877 to the present. That seemed like an odd year for a cut off so I searched the history. Here are some significant changes starting in and around 1877:

The beginning of the Gilded Age starts in 1877

1877 is the year of the railroad workers strike. This led to the beginning of national unions for workers.

March 1877 was the Supreme Court case for Munn vs Illinois in which the, the High Court established the constitutional principle of public regulation of private businesses involved in serving the public interest.

1870’s Harvard Law School Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell (1826-1906) applied Darwin’s theory of evolution to law. Introduced the case-law method instead of the Constitution. Students studied the decisions of judges instead of the Constitution of the Founders. Students grew to become less and less aware of what the Founders said and more and more aware of what judges decided. This was strengthened by the following Dean (1916-1936), Roscoe Pound, who is credited with institutionalizing the law with “positivism”, a kind of Darwinian theory of growing towards a goal by positive or forward steps of change and that positive change is necessary for society to evolve to its end form.

Is this a coincidence that the beginning of public regulation over private business, the beginning of national unions, the movement away from studying the constitution and the early beginnings of ideas that would lead to the progressive era is the date they chose to start studying current events? Or is this more likely a dliberate act to continue the indoctrination of our children like we have seen in TIDES foundation videos, songs taught to school children and art propaganda? This seems to be another attempt by the Progressives to rewite history and/or erase the history they find inconvenient.

Tags:
Read More

Pages


Copyright © 2014 SheeplePeople.com