Communism Taking Over the USA on January 20th?

[Graham]

How many more millions of payoffs would it take, in your estimation, to put him in the pocket of the CCP?

Very likely much less than what Wall Street has been offering through lobbying and other means for decades.

True, but the key thing to understand here is that he is part of a particular class, the same class as wall street executives and hedge fund managers in fact (and no, Ralfy, they are not free market capitalists!), with a class interest and mindset that has formed independently of Chinese bribery.

[james03]

Corporatism is the result of free market capitalism. That is, one starts with competition, and then some become stronger and take over, and it reaches a point when they control government, too. In addition, with industrialization businesses grow (which is also the result of capitalism, as profits are reinvested to expand them), which leads to larger organizations.

Partly true.  This is the case of natural monopolies and "standard" monopolies, e.g. Microsoft Windows became the standard.

In short, the result of free market capitalism is its opposite, and in order to return to it one will have to ironically go against it: regulate heavily and break up those who are powerful.

Break up those who are MONOPOLIES.  Yes. 
Regulate heavily?  That creates monopolies and corruption.  Eliminate central regulation in most cases and push that regulatory power down to the local level.  Then let governments compete to find the right balance between economic production and societal life.

[christulsa]

Break up those who are MONOPOLIES.  Yes.  Regulate heavily?  That creates monopolies and corruption.  Eliminate central regulation in most cases and push that regulatory power down to the local level.  Then let governments compete to find the right balance between economic production and societal life.

Barring a miracle next week on 1/6, I don't see how that's going to happen for the next generations to come, except through secession.  Even under Trump in the White House, I don't see it happening.  Which brings us to this pivotal moment in US history.   I'm praying my battle rosary Trump still wins, but I think we need to be planning right now for a secession effort and still supporting Trump as our true president for the next 4 years until he either is restored to the White House or better we form a new Union.  What other solution is there, politically?

[ralfy]

Go to 34 mins on video for snippet on Vision 2020 developed in 90's...includes dominance everywhere including space!!

Ralfy.....Davis???

The more important aspect to consider is the grand chessboard, especially in light of the dollar used as a reserve currency, not to mention the petrodollar.

[ralfy]

You're not mistaken, Ralfy.  My understanding is that the Russian commies first outlawed marriage, but it messed everything up so badly, they changed it.  But the feminism spread like the cancer it is, and now married bundles of twigs can marry and adopt baby boys....

I'm referring to recent news about Putin who is seen as anti-gay and anti-homosexual. There's also news about the growing strength of the Russian Orthodox Church.

[ralfy]

True, but the key thing to understand here is that he is part of a particular class, the same class as wall street executives and hedge fund managers in fact (and no, Ralfy, they are not free market capitalists!), with a class interest and mindset that has formed independently of Chinese bribery.

Free market capitalism refers to a situation with the least level of deregulation. As the latter led to the rise of Wall Street, then it's clear that they are free market capitalist.

How did that deregulation take place? They lobbied Congress, and politicians from both parties became beholden to them because they fund the government and the military and control most of the economy.

And the Chinese? They eventually learned to play the same game.

[james03]

Free market capitalism refers to a situation with the least level of deregulation.

That would be laissez faire capitalism. 

How did that deregulation take place? They lobbied Congress, and politicians from both parties became beholden to them because they fund the government and the military and control most of the economy.

The Community Reinvestment Act (free market capitalism) required banks to lend to poor people.  Fannie Mae (free market capitalism) then bought up all the garbage loans until it blew up.  The government (free market capitalism) then massively bailed out the banks.

The source of all of this is the Federal Reserve Bankers Guild set up by the government (free market capitalism) which has a monopoly on money and banking.  When they screw up, what is the response of people who don't understand any of this?  We need more government to protect us!

The answer is subsidiarity.  Push the power down to the local level.  Yes we need some central government and some interstate regulation.  For example usury should be outlawed (which includes government debt, credit card debt, and corporate debt for stock buy-backs) and money needs to be backed.  Banks also can only invest savings deposits plus paid in capital (100% backed loans).  You do that and you are fixing the government created problem rather than chasing symptoms.

[james03]

The more important aspect to consider is the grand chessboard, especially in light of the dollar used as a reserve currency,

That is a function of liquidity, and is due to the HUGE usurious government debts in the USA.  This makes US debt markets very liquid, e.g. the bid/ask spread is tight, and you can fill a billion dollar order in seconds.  Therefore if you need to park reserves short term, buy some T-bills and you know you'll get your money back with minimal effort and risk.  By the way, Switzerland is not a reserve currency, and yet they do fine.

not to mention the petrodollar.

It's really the petro-bond, and that is critical.  The USA provides defense security for Saudi Arabia and they purchase US usury debt with their oil profits.  THAT was the basis of the Kissinger agreement.  When Saudi Arabia cuts back on purchases (as like today), this forces the Federal Reserve Bankers Guild to step in and buy the US government usury bonds, or Uncle Sugar would shut down from lack of funding.  However when the Fed does this, the value of the dollar drops due to monetary inflation.

The "petrodollar", that is, the crude markets being denominated in dollars is meaningless.  FX markets are highly liquid and trade $6 TRILLION PER DAY.  The dollar denomination pricing is a convenience, e.g. comparing Brent to WTI.  A crude producer can exchange the dollars from a sale in about a second on the FX exchanges.

The core of the agreement is bond purchases, not dollar listing.  To be intellectually honest, dollar listing provides a psychological support for the dollar, however functionally it is totally meaningless.

[TradGranny]

Abolition of Private Property Is at the Core of Communism
WEF Predicts Abolition of Private Property in 2030


To define communism in a sentence it is best to use original words by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who wrote that communist doctrine can be summarized as the abolition of private property Paul Kengor, professor of political science at Grove City College, told The Epoch Times in an interview.

"The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," Marx and Engels, the founders of the communist doctrine, wrote in The Communist Manifesto, a book that forms the basis for communism.

Abolishing private property can only be possible through a war, Kengor said, because private property is "a basic Judeo-Christian law, natural rights, biblical rights: thou shalt not steal. I mean from the cave to the courthouse the right to own property is fundamental to human nature let alone any operating economy anywhere."

"To abolish private property you're going to have a war on your hands, you're going to need guns, you're going to need gulags," Kengor said on Epoch Times' Crossroads program. Therefore communists killed 100 million people to abolish private property, he added.

Some conservatives talk about "how communism distorts markets" and conclude that "communism economically doesn't work," Kengor said clarifying that "communism doesn't work because it's evil, it's diabolical."

WEF Predicts Abolition of Private Property in 2030
The World Economic Forum (WEF) predicted that in 2030 people will own nothing and "all products will have become services," according to the organization's 8 predictions for the world in 2030.

Ida Auken, a Danish Parliament Member, and a WEF's young leader wrote for the WEF about her vision of life in 2030, "I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes."

"Everything you considered a product, has now become a service," Auken continued.

"Once in awhile [sic], I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. No [sic] where I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me," Auken said but added, "All in all, it is a good life."

Dr. Antony Mueller, a German professor of economics, wrote for the Mises Institute, "If the WEF projection should come true, people would have to rent and borrow their necessities from the state, which would be the sole proprietor of all goods. The supply of goods would be rationed in line with a social credit points system."

[TradGranny]

continued:
Karl Marx and the Devil
The Communist Manifesto also demands the abolition of all religions, all morality, and the abolition of the family, Kengor said.

Marx and Engels call in the Manifesto for "Abolition of the family! "

"On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. ... [But the family is practically absent] among the proletarians, and in public prostitution," Marx and Engels explained in the Manifesto.

Marx considered religion to be "the opiate of the masses," wanted to abolish all religion, and stated that "communism begins where atheism begins," Kengor said.

However, Marx himself was not an atheist. Kengor talked about little known facts that Marx wrote about the devil in his chilling and frightening poems and plays citing a stanza from Marx's poem "The Pale Maiden" written in 1837:

Thus Heaven I've forfeited, I know it full well.
My soul, once true to God, is chosen for Hell.

Kengor believes that this strophe "is partly autobiographical because his soul was once true to God."

Marx wrote in another poem "The Player" (also translated as "The Fiddler") in 1841:

Look now, my blood-dark sword shall stab
Unerringly within thy soul.
God neither knows nor honors art.
The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain.

Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed.
See this sword–the Prince of Darkness sold it to me.
For he beats the time and gives the signs.
Ever more boldly I play the dance of death.

Kengor commented on the last verse, "what more was communism but kind of a dance of death. I mean you can't find any ideology in all of history that was responsible for as many deaths as communism: at least 100 million in the last century alone."

Abolishing of private property and all religion are not the only destructive goals that communists seek. Kengor pointed out what Marx and Engels wrote at the end of The Communist Manifesto: "They [the Communists] openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

"Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things," and this is why communists are behind the movement to tear down statues of historical figures such as Saint Junipero Serra, founder of the California missions, or Christopher Columbus, Kengor said.

"This is a very radical destructive ideology," he added.

Advice to Communism Supporters
Communism has been so redefined today to look like socialism or democratic socialism, but "according to Marx and Engels, socialism was the final transitionary step to communism," Kengor explained.

Communists and socialists say all the time that "communism is a pretty good idea if you just read the book. It hasn't been applied correctly yet," Kengor said.

He advised reading a 10-point plan laid out by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto which not only calls for the abolition of private property but also for the abolition of the right of inheritance and more equal distribution of population across the countryside. This means that communists seek not only redistribution of people's money and property but also the forcible relocation of people, Kengor continued.

To understand why communism is an "utterly destructive ideology that doesn't work" people need to read books about it including The Communist Manifesto, Kengor said.

There are many advocating communism and socialism. Therefore Kengor wrote the book "The Devil and Karl Marx" to help people understand "how incendiary destructive and in some cases diabolical" communism

[ralfy]

That would be laissez faire capitalism.

Essentially the same:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laissezfaire.asp

The Community Reinvestment Act (free market capitalism) required banks to lend to poor people.  Fannie Mae (free market capitalism) then bought up all the garbage loans until it blew up.  The government (free market capitalism) then massively bailed out the banks.

The source of all of this is the Federal Reserve Bankers Guild set up by the government (free market capitalism) which has a monopoly on money and banking.  When they screw up, what is the response of people who don't understand any of this?  We need more government to protect us!

The answer is subsidiarity.  Push the power down to the local level.  Yes we need some central government and some interstate regulation.  For example usury should be outlawed (which includes government debt, credit card debt, and corporate debt for stock buy-backs) and money needs to be backed.  Banks also can only invest savings deposits plus paid in capital (100% backed loans).  You do that and you are fixing the government created problem rather than chasing symptoms.

When government requires banks to do something, that's not part of free market capitalism.

And when government bails out the rich, that's the result of free market capitalism.

That is, one starts with a free market capitalism, from which those who become stronger take over by colluding with or controlling the government. Hence, robber barons during the nineteenth century followed by manufacturers and financiers during the earlier twentieth, then control of money supply through the Federal Reserve (which is a private consortium of Wall Street banks), then profiting from the war effort, followed by consumer spending, the Bretton Woods system followed by petrodollar recycling, and what Eisenhower called "the military industrial compex," and finally four decades of Reaganomics (which former opponent Bush, Sr., referred to as "voodoo economics") involving both parties (which is why both Bush and Obama bailed out the rich while engaged in warmongering, with rich people like Trump benefiting from provisions like tax cuts, rebates, and loopholes), which others followed and leading to a global derivatives market with a notional value of $1.2 quadrillion, or more than twenty times the size of the global economy itself.

And given his past, Biden will do the same.

[ralfy]

That is a function of liquidity, and is due to the HUGE usurious government debts in the USA.  This makes US debt markets very liquid, e.g. the bid/ask spread is tight, and you can fill a billion dollar order in seconds.  Therefore if you need to park reserves short term, buy some T-bills and you know you'll get your money back with minimal effort and risk.  By the way, Switzerland is not a reserve currency, and yet they do fine.

A grand chessboard strategy, where over 800 military bases are used to control weaker countries and surround rival military powers, is not a function of increasing debt but the result of it.

The function of increasing liquidity is the Bretton Woods system followed by petrodollar recycling from 1974 onward, which in turn lead to the Triffin dilemma and which contributed to voodoo economics from 1982 to the present:

http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/30/krugman-and-the-pied-pipers-of-debt/

It's really the petro-bond, and that is critical.  The USA provides defense security for Saudi Arabia and they purchase US usury debt with their oil profits.  THAT was the basis of the Kissinger agreement.  When Saudi Arabia cuts back on purchases (as like today), this forces the Federal Reserve Bankers Guild to step in and buy the US government usury bonds, or Uncle Sugar would shut down from lack of funding.  However when the Fed does this, the value of the dollar drops due to monetary inflation.

It was critical not because the U.S. provided "defense security for Saudi Arabia" or similar nonsense but because U.S. conventional production peaked in 1970, allies became wary of U.S. heavy spending in Indochina and elsewhere in order to prop up their failed puppet regimes and leading to the drop of the gold standard by Nixon, and the U.S. found a way to maintain that by encouraging OPEC to price oil in dollars while supplying them with military aid. And that's the same U.S. that was also arming Israel and later supplied weapons to Iraq.

The "petrodollar", that is, the crude markets being denominated in dollars is meaningless.  FX markets are highly liquid and trade $6 TRILLION PER DAY.  The dollar denomination pricing is a convenience, e.g. comparing Brent to WTI.  A crude producer can exchange the dollars from a sale in about a second on the FX exchanges.

The core of the agreement is bond purchases, not dollar listing.  To be intellectually honest, dollar listing provides a psychological support for the dollar, however functionally it is totally meaningless.

Which isn't true, which is why the U.S. maintained the same onerous agreement with the Saudis and other human rights abusers since. That's also why Junior decided to attack Iraq (because it was trading oil with Western countries in Euros), why Benghazi Barry decided to destabilize Libya (because it wanted to form its own oil bourse), and why both threatened Iran (which formed its own oil bourse which eventually shut down) and Japan (for buying oil from Iran). But none of this is true because Junior, Barry, Shillary, and the mainstream press kept arguing these were all part of "freedom" and "democracy."

[Graham]

True, but the key thing to understand here is that he is part of a particular class, the same class as wall street executives and hedge fund managers in fact (and no, Ralfy, they are not free market capitalists!), with a class interest and mindset that has formed independently of Chinese bribery.

Free market capitalism refers to a situation with the least level of deregulation.

You mean "the least level of regulation," of course. Even correcting your typo the definition makes little sense (capitalism involves other components, notably the existence of a distinct socioeconomic class of capitalists who have a certain relationship to the means of production) and does not apply, since "the least level of regulation" was a "situation" that prevailed, at least domestically, before the New Deal. That is the point at which the managerial class, which had been gradually inserting itself between capital and labour for half a century, decisively asserted itself against the bourgeois capitalist class in the US through the introduction of sweeping regulation.

Bear in mind, I'm not attempting to defend or rehabilitate free market capitalism by insulating it from modern failures. Nor am I opposing regulation. I'm trying to describe how the system was transformed through the first half of the 20th century into something that can't rightly be called capitalist, let alone free market.

[ralfy]

You mean "the least level of regulation," of course. Even correcting your typo the definition makes little sense (capitalism involves other components, notably the existence of a distinct socioeconomic class of capitalists who have a certain relationship to the means of production) and does not apply, since "the least level of regulation" was a "situation" that prevailed, at least domestically, before the New Deal. That is the point at which the managerial class, which had been gradually inserting itself between capital and labour for half a century, decisively asserted itself against the bourgeois capitalist class in the US through the introduction of sweeping regulation.

Bear in mind, I'm not attempting to defend or rehabilitate free market capitalism by insulating it from modern failures. Nor am I opposing regulation. I'm trying to describe how the system was transformed through the first half of the 20th century into something that can't rightly be called capitalist, let alone free market.

That's because there's no such thing as modern capitalism without regulation. Even fiat currency required for smooth transactions and even legitimization of ownership of private property requires such.

That means the least level of regulation did not start with the New Deal but centuries earlier, as armed men enclosed plots of land in late medieval England and declared them property of one warlord or another.

Also, the managerial class did not insert itself. Capitalists hired them as organizations became increasingly complex and specialized.

[GiftOfGod]

This is called a "Political Compass" meme.