Upcoming Foreclosures

Is unrestrained capitalism the dream of the elites and the vehicle to totalitarian government?

Pick a rich guy --- no not that neighbor down the road who only makes a couple hundred thousand a year or even a few measly couple of million Pick a real rich person ----- billions in assets and thousands of acres of land with control of 100's of thousands of jobs Now lets call him "Bob" a nice common name Bob and his buddies own the majority of the land have most of the money and control most of the labour force in the nation --- Bob and his buddies make up less that 2 % of the population own the banks the media the arms manufactures industry of all kinds and loan money to governments of the elected Your national deficit can be doubled or halved by a stroke of a pen ---- change the interest rates of the loans to government and increase the deficit over night 1 million owed --- interest 5 % -- monthly debt 50,000 Stroke of a pen by the owner of the bank who lent the money to the government 10 % ---- monthly deficit 100,000 over night News coverage by the same group who owns the bank and the media ----government policy increases deficit by enacting such and such a program Public outraged Lay offs ? Foreclosures ? Rent increases ? Wages ? All controlled by the same 2 % Is unrestrained capitalism the dream of the elites and the vehicle to totalitarian government ? Bob controls the regional government and thereby has massive influence or outright control over your property tax the purchasing power of your dollar and the governments policy Bob and his buddies control the debt the deficit the rate of taxes the labour pools and owns most of the land and has massive influence over the portions he does not own He controls which corporations succeed which do not which politicians will be covered and in what light which politicians to ignore or vilify the educational policy your children will be subjected to or liberated by which products will or will not be available and when trade barriers are or are not to be used If this situation was to be described 100 yrs ago --- Bob would be Lord Bob and the biggest of Bobs inner circle would be called King the local owners of industry that existed because of their loyalty to Lord Bob would be called Barron or Earl The smaller defenders of Bob's Kings policies and stances would be called Sir Former Prime Minister Diefenbaker ( conservative) called the above Asiatic chaos which lead to 2 classes of person --- the owned and the owner In the past this system of Feudal Lords came with an opposition --- the church Europe was going from a theocracy to a State sponsored governance The last vestige of this is the idea of sanctuary from the State in a church You will notice the only 2 groups that are exempt from property tax to this day are the State and the church The other difference is that in that feudal arrangement ownership came with responsibility for the owned persons That responsibility in an unrestrained capitalist society has been completely removed and the idea of it vilified to the point where the people are disgusted by the mere concept Ownership of old --- the Lords Sir's Barons and Earls have it all -- and with absolutely no responsibility Wouldn't that be the wet dream of any upper echelon billionaire ?

Public Comments

1. No, the dream of the elitists is to save us from ourselves since they know what's best for us.
2. You just went way over the heads of people on Yahoo Answers. All we do is rant about Obama, Pelosi, Bush, Chaney, Palin ect ect
3. Unrestrained capitalism is the worst fear of elites and the vehicle to a free and prosperous society.
4. Ask Diane Feinstein's husband. The government is doing this now. When corporations and government get together, this is bad. But we wanted stability. Right Voters?
5. If by unrestrained capitalism you mean free market capitalism, no. It's corporatism that's enabled so many corporations to get so big because they've used their money to get politicians to legislate subsidies and protectionist policies to crush competition and keep them in power. That's not capitalism.
6. Not really because unrestrained capitalism would mean competition. They need government interference to make sure they can keep competition away and bully 3rd world governments. Free market capitalism is the enemy of the biggest corporations which is why you'll never see them donating to libertarian candidates or people like Ron Paul.
7. America grew from nothing to the greatest nation in history in 200 yrs by socialism?
8. I can solve one problem in there really easily. Don't have a national debt and don't have budget deficits. Don't allow government to spend what they don't have. What the analysis always overlooks is that all other options results in the same split of general people and ruling elite. It's just that at least with Capitalism every single person has the opportunity to change their position. That's not true in the other systems.
9. Your little example, Mr. Socialist, forgets one tenant of Capitalism - competition. Yes, today Bob might have control of that region. But when the consumer rebels against him by not support his product with their dollars - then his entire fortune would disappear. What you are describing is a Monopoly, and monopolies have been regulated for centuries. However, if you actually studied economics, instead of reading Karl Marx, you'd know that all monopolies are self-defeating. That in a truly capitalist society, monopolies and people like your "Lord Bob" would be crushed under the weight of their own creation. Government controls and regulations end up doing the exact opposite of their stated intent. So instead of having a large monopoly that destroys itself when it gets too big, we have a bunch of smaller monopolies forced on us by the federal government (Cable companies, power utilities, banks, etc). I suggest you pick up Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise, by Younkins. Maybe you'll see the light and realize that socialism is a tyrannical government - not capitalism.