This seems like a good a time as any to ask how the super-rich-multi-billionaire types come into existence. There are some who are marching on cities citing the egregious concentration of 40% of wealth within the 1% as a problem of the so-called free markets, but it’s all a lie.
Radical leftists are hell bent on bringing socialism to America claiming that our system is unfairly tilted in favor of the rich, and I just might agree with them. That is clearly a symptom of a much larger disease. What ails us is big, anti-market government. I have long contended that America has not had capitalism for 80-100 years, starting with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, yet we are constantly hearing capitalism blamed for all and every economic woe.
Government Intervention Creates The Super Rich
When government intervenes into the market place, it often time creates a new set of mandates by which corporations that wish to be seen as law abiding must adhere to. The problem is, the market is then unable to innovate as fast because smaller upstart competitors cannot keep up with the rising cost of never ending government interventions. 
Considering how quickly government spending has gone up enforcing regulations, the only players equipped to battle to government are large, established businesses and business people.
Lets say you are Amish and want to sell fresh, unpasteurized milk to neighbors and others who believe that major nutritional value is lost through this government mandated process. The FDA can come and shut you down. In fact, all across America the FDA has been shutting down small town farmers and Amish who sell unpasteurized milk to an educated public who want the product as it is being sold. No one is being duped, tricked or forced. However, the federal government in all its wisdom has shut down a small dairy businesses, leaving milk customers to take their dollars elsewhere. While there is no evidence to suggest that the FDA was in collusion with Big Dairy, it inadvertently helped out that 1% group. If something like this were to happen to a major dairy farmer, they would have the fiscal staying power to combat accusations in court, and if the demand for unpasteurized milk was great enough, hire a lobbyist to get the needed laws overturned to protect their share of the unpasteurized milk market after the federal government did the dirty work of eliminating their low level competition. Sounds like something out of a mob movie does it not? In this and most scenarios, the government essentially acts an enforcer, protecting the turf of the five families and putting any enterprising start-ups down, or at the very least leaving the new comers with no choice but to be bought out by the big dogs.
It comes as no surprise then that as 
government intervention grew, the wealth gap widened significantly.
The same could be said of banking regulations. Massive regulations were put into place to protect the consumer, starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and several subsequent usurpations of power by the federal government can directly be attributed to the financial collapse of 2008 and the destruction of smaller banks leaving the consumer with little or no choice in some regions and higher banking costs all around. Yet, who does the consumer blame? The CEOs making billions of dollars, not the government who illicitly cultivated the banking environment, unintended or otherwise.
Isn’t This Capitalism?
No. This is not capitalism, this is something far different. The basis for our current system lies in the idea that the consumer needs protecting because all who are profit seeking are automatically dangerous. The basis of all government interventions into the market are considered to be heroic and not thuggery. What the little guy gets, however, is thuggery rebranded as heroism. There is a legitimate case to be made that certain nutrients are lost during pasteurization. Yet the government steps in to protect the consumer to the detriment of the small business person and against the natural choice of the consumer.
Obviously, the examples could go on in perpetuity. The government creates the environment for the super rich to spawn by muscling out small timers with heavy handed laws and regulation , and then blame the free market. The government creates laws, mandates and regulations to protect the consumer, but ultimately remove the greatest mechanism for consumer protection already built into the market, a market correction. Sure, in the past corrections did create small bubbles and recessions once every decade, however the market was organically repairing itself at the will of the consumers. Now bureaucrats have that control, not the people. Free market capitalism is a system in which an individual is free to make choices regardless of the opinion of the government, yet that is not what we have. Can it even be called capitalism anymore? Are we ready to finally hold the real thieves accountable?
Well, isn’t this grand? Housing is a right, and the government is the arbiter of all the things you are due. This sounds like it is right of the Van Jones playbook. In fact, it is. Wow, it is like Van never left office. I feel as though there might be some sort of Glenn Beck style conspiracy here that I could point to, equipped with pictures of organization’s logos and lines drawn between them. It may very be the case; however that would assume that the progressives in power recognize that the free market works and the best way to manipulate it to represent their spread-the-misery ideology is to creep in with government entities.
In case this comes to you as a surprise, The Federal Housing Finance Agency is looking into how they can rent homes that Fannie and Freddie own:
The U.S. government rescued Fannie and Freddie in September 2008 and has funded them since the financial crisis. The mortgage giants own or guarantee about half of the nation’s mortgages and nearly all new mortgages.
…
Many foreclosures have been stalled so attorneys general and federal regulators can investigate whether lenders cut corners and improperly handled thousands of cases. Once a settlement is finalized, foreclosures are expected to pick up again and further depress home prices.
Converting the homes into rentals may reduce “credit losses and help stabilize neighborhoods and home values,” said Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie.
If you are unaware, Freddie and Fannie were responsible for the housing bubble that has reset inflated housing prices as of late. They purchased mortgage backed securities that no one else really wanted to touch. This is the perfect play for the oh-so desperate Obama.
Redistributing Your Home
According to Bloomberg last year:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled companies that issued and guaranteed more than 71 percent of mortgage-backed bonds last year. Between those companies and Ginnie Mae, which guarantees loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration, the government backed nearly 97 percent of U.S. mortgages in 2009.
We have all heard the horror stories of major banks randomly foreclosing on homes they had no right to. What if the government decides in all of its wisdom that your house is simply to lavish? What if your home sits on a large piece of land that could better serve the community by becoming a massive housing ghetto? Sure, this sounds very black-helicopter-Alex-Jones, but is it that far off?
The constitutional scholar that is Obama has found ways to make us do all sorts of wrong things, such as forcing people into insurance as a requirement of good citizenship and sending troops into battle without congressional approval. Sure, brown shirts will not show up to your door and force you out of your home and into a FEMA camp. Even progressives realize that small localized government is the most expedient, so they will nudge you out with small legislation enacted by regional planning boards and committees created and appointed by elected officials. The EPA creates silly standards every day; and these laws have the same force as any law passed by the federal government or your local one.
There are two conclusions one can draw from this scenario. Either, the federal government is completely incompetent and ought to be thrown out of office or just ignored or, this is done by design in order to create a new society.
Over the last few weeks I have read several different articles pertaining to income inequality. Perhaps it is because we are getting closer to tax day and we are looking at how imbalanced the tax burden is in America, but more than likely its whiney-hiney thumb sucking liberals crying from their ivory towers. That aside, the statistics are staggering while at the same time eye opening.
The top 1% of the wealthy control 40% of the wealth. 25 years ago that was that statistic was the top 12% controlling 33%. Staggering right? I mean, is it moral for such a small minority to control so much of the wealth? That question is rarely coupled with the fact that the same group controlling the wealth pay the bulk of the taxes. In fact, that top 1% pay more in taxes than 95% of the bottom. Join that with the fact that nearly 50% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes and I really start to wonder how people are defining the term ‘inequality’ when they use it.
Most of what I have read has been written by progressives hoping to achieve a state sponsored income equality program, better known as socialism. They assert that workers (if you can call them that) are…wait for it…victims of large corporations. They site CEO pay and compare it how small the workers’ pay is in addition to the growing unemployment problem. Let us ignore, for the moment, that most of these lefties do the John Kerry and flip-flop on the health of the economy based on the context of the conversation. None the less what they are hoping to incite is a student-and-worker-powered uprising to overthrow the existing economic system for a revolutionary socialist one.
I could go on spouting the conservative platitude about the rich employing people and paying the bulk of the taxes, but that is just beating a dead horse. I have yet to see anyone look at the fact that government intervention and income inequality have a direct relationship. That is to say that the more government creates programs for the poor and destitute, the more the middle class shrinks. This is of course based on statistics used by liberals. For people lacking common sense, this is not a logical conclusion to draw. The logical conclusion for them is to increase the ineffective procedures because science says repeat what does not work over and over and it shall work. Wait, no-that is the definition of insanity. However that is what we continue to do. If one round of bail-outs do not work, we do another. If two years of unemployment benefits still leave people without work, we extend it to three. And when none of it works, we blame big corporations and create legislation to control them which just ends up furthering the divide between the rich and so-called poor. A vicious cycle no-doubt designed to push us towards chaos, revolt and ultimately revolution.
I could follow this up with statistics, charts and graphs; however that would not convince those who are set in their delusions. What else can I say except crack is wack? That’s right; I am suggesting that people who use income inequality statistics as the basis for an argument against free markets love crack cocaine and perhaps distribute it to children.
Sources:
The Obama administration just cut a deal to extend unemployment benefits an additional 13 months along with agreeing to extend tax cuts for another 2 years. Many see this as a win, some see it as a loss and I myself see it as a draw.
While it might seem like the only way to ensure job saving tax cuts, I must beg the question as to what 155 weeks of being on unemployment might do to an individual’s mental faculties. John Lott has done some empirical studies that suggest that people are only looking for work after the so-called benefits run out, or shortly before they do. So is it that there are no jobs or perhaps that some Americans are picky and they are not given a good reason to go out and look?
In the governments all knowing all seeing wisdom, it set out to fix what it sees as broken. However the job market is not broken, it just needed to be cleaned out. Some individuals need to take lower paying jobs and others need to look at new industries, and some need to start a business. The rest should be apply for work at the several new automotive plants being opened in Mexico.
With all that said, I must also say that I do not think this has anything to do with helping Americans or creating jobs. It is done partly to disenfranchise Americans who are working hard and are still under employed, and it is also done to win votes and redistribute wealth. Yeah, I did just pack that much conspiracy theory into the end of a sentence.
That quote is not about necessarily about this particular deal; however it begs the question as to how Claire thinks that millionaires are just magically given money by the government ferry as if it was the government’s to give away. If anyone should know, it ought to be her; McCaskill ranks as the 14th richest member of congress whose net worth was $19.42 million in 2008. We have also seen the president speaking this way. They do this intentionally to lay the ground work for a riots-in-the-streets revolution of workers to usher in that new world order we are always hearing about. This is part of a grander global scheme that had no hope of coming to fruition without the hopity changiness of Obamanomics.
The federal government wants to disable American workers and disarm business so it can swoop in and save the day. The government in general and this administration in particular seem to be hell bent on eliminating any trace of capitalism and freedom from our system. After we go through a few more rounds of extending benefits we will find that we must now provide free education (perhaps run by the government you ask? No, no, they would never do that!) to the workers the feds have put out of work so they are skillful enough to actually get jobs.
While McCaskill suggests we take up pitchforks, this guy says we fix the problem by not sucking at basic economics…morons.
Is capitalism evil? This is the fundamental question of our time. Wall street has been blamed for ruining millions financially as well as exporting jobs overseas all in the name of greed, but are they really to blame? Is it perhaps proof that the so-called “greed” of capitalism is indeed immoral and not a good economic platform? Well, what is greed?
Greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed
Is greed good? Well, have you ever asked yourself if the laws of greed extend beyond the selfish desire of money? Would it not be the case that any sort of forced collectivization would essentially meet the definition of greed? What about political profits? How about good old jealousy, in the proper context, couldn’t that be greedy as well? The idea that capitalism and greed are equivalent seems to be the prevailing wisdom of the day. We are seeing an administration hungry to nationalize its community organizing roots without any question as to its effect on the populous yet it is not seen as greedy. Aren’t they just in pursuit of more power than they need?
America does not have a laissez-faire free market system, although we are often reminded that the lack of government oversight is the root cause of all of our woes; which is an attempt to suggest that we do. We often hear anthropologist and sociologists speak of capitalism as if it’s in crisis, when in fact we do not have a true-to-the-bone capitalistic system.
There was such a system in place well before the New Deal. However, when good old Uncle Sam saw the plight of the downtrodden it swooped in to fix it. It seems as though big government bureaucrats never take responsibility for creating mass poverty; rather government officials choose to blame the businesses that are merely attempting to compensate for the new expenditures caused by the central planners so eager to “help”. They never seem to acknowledge that there are consequences to their assistance and have found a wonderful scape goat in the productive class, painting a picture of them as and being greedy and materialistic.
The government is continually attempting to prevent the market from correcting itself, and in doing so it has inadvertently propped up corporations that deserve to fail. The government has created monsters and crooks that would normally be expelled from the market place through a correction. In order to prevent crooks that they created from thriving, the government creates more legislation, claiming it is all in the pursuit of protecting the people.
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. Has the unconstitutional intervention of the federal government enriched the poor, eradicated sickness, and made everyone happy? According to the statistics it has only grown those on the government dole, limited competition and entrepreneurship, slowing the job growth that is ultimately responsible for the middle class.
Failure, according to the left is immoral and big government allowing failure in our markets and lives is seen as a moral failing to leftists. We are propping up people who need to finally reach their bottom. When we fail, we may lose what we have acquired but we never lose what we have become. Failure strengthens people and the market place. Failure and desperation are our God given right, and it is the most fundamental right that the liberals want to outlaw.
While I cannot prove that the systematic destruction of our free market system was done intentionally over decades to usher in a new world order, it sometimes seems as though if it were not for that end the people we elected to Washington are science-rejecting-flat-earth-believing morons.
When it comes down to answering the question “Is capitalism evil” we ought to be pointing the finger at those who are so eager to save us from ourselves; as if we are the problem. Big business is not the greedy one, it is big government.
Have a burning desire to take from the makers, give to the takers until the makers stop making? Well, here is how to do so in THREE EASY STEPS:
Copyright © 2012 | DKT PRESS | All Rights Reserved.
