Speaking of the corporate takeover of America:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14004846

Whenever I see approaches to the power corporations are wielding now to command and control the economy and the US political/economic framework, I'm reminded of this incident. For the link-phobic in 1907-8 the US economy had a major panic caused by issues of credit going bust. Now, panic, for those not in the know, is a euphemism for the tendency of the
pre-constrained economy to have revolving doors between prosperity and sudden nosedives that wiped out entire families at rates much less predictable than they are now. This particular panic is unusual for one reason: it was solved by the efforts of only one man, J. Pierpont Morgan, who single-handedly bailed out the US government and with it the economy. This reflected that before the rise of the income tax and with the kind of ruthless business practices standard in the age of the Robber Barons it was extremely possible for one man to amass wealth, and with it power, all out of proportion to the influence any one man should wield.

This is a cautionary tale to me of what happens when business, or wealth, gain unlimited power and the means to wield it. They not only can wield it, but will do so in a manner that nobody who genuinely favors and approves of democracy, that all are created equal and that government is of the people, by the people, and for the people can or would approve of. There is a reason that the economy is regulated and that we have the Federal Reserve. This incident is very much the one that was on people's minds at the time. To consider abolishing the Federal Reserve or to limit the government's role in the economy as much as Romney or Ryan would wish is to consider leaving the US economy in the unpredictable hands of the J.P. Morgans of the world.

Comments

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

Oh very interesting, I didn't know about that. (Not taught in schools, lol.)

How do you stand on auditing the Fed? Are there things they need to be held more accountable on, instead of seeming to be this great big mysterious banker in the sky?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I believe anyone with great power should have great accountability in wielding it. A group of people, however, are more able to be restrained/controlled than one person is.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

Okay, but do you support an audit? And are there things the Fed needs to be held more accountable on?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Audits are already mandated, so I support the audits that are already required.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

I am happy with the audits of the Federal Reserve which we already do. (http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty6.html)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Hush now, don't offend the convinced ideologue by noting the humble existence of puny reality. ;)

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Your original post is obviously bankster propaganda. The business cycle is caused by the central banks; before the government and Federal Reserve came along to interfere with the workings of the market it was perfectly self-correcting.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Really?

http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1561488.html?thread=125942672#t125942672

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1561488.html?thread=125942672#t125942672

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this information that I did not have at the moment. When I'm seeking knowledge it pretty much means I don't have it, and giving me links or resources rather than writing me off as an ideologue like 'lankers helps me to understand your position and to form my own.

You were helpful.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

The Fed really does need to be auditted, I'll explain why.

Think back to the bailout in 2008. Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, is asked which foreign banks received funding under TARP & how much they received.



Ben Bernanke responds by saying he doesn't know.

To this day, no one knows precisely which foreign banks received funds and how much funds they received.

This is direct evidence and proof that the fed is not audited contrary to what many government apologists claim.

It also illustrates the reason the fed needs to be auditted -- increased transparency and taxpayers deserving to know where their hard earned money goes.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, it means malice rather than incompetence. Another sign of the clear, higher logic that exists over all others in this community, leaping through several chains of assumptions, none of which are verified, to arrive at a stark conclusion that requires rather more evidence that the conclusion as presented is shown as having.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Not sure how you'd go about auditing the FED, but the way the states balance their books would put Enron to shame. I'd be for applying generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing standards to the states.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

I see your zeitgeist and raise you a Robert Widemer.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Morgan was a what now?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Another event of significant interest in the history of money politics is the effect of a threatened capital strike in the election of WIlliam McKinley. People were told that if they voted for William Jennings Bryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_jennings_bryan#First_campaign_for_the_White_House:_1896), investors would pull their capital out of the American economy. It was a reverse jobs program.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Those threats are old as the hills in terms of the politics of that day. It was in fact an essential part of how political bosses like Tweed and Pendergast monopolized power. And before that of course both the capitalist and the Slave Power had their own little twists on it as well.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

History is exceedingly strange in the way it makes heroes of men like JP Morgan who may well have been planetoid mass shill puppets for foreign interests and makes villains out of those who actually were real heroes.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Morgan was a what now?

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Morgan was fronting for stateless internationalists manipulating nations and their economies in order to suck the lifeblood out of them — you know who (http://miniver.blogspot.com/2006/05/who-are-they.html) he means.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

JP Morgan "saved" the government in the way that Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve "saved" the economy with the bailout.

In Bernanke's case, it means he completely ignored all evidence of a housing and credit bubble as early on as 2005:



A better man would have take steps to avoid a meltdown or a housing crisis & maybe it could have been prevented.

Does that make him a hero & mean he saved the US economy? It may be more accurate to say that Bernanke caused the meltdown in ignoring the warning signs and dismissing evidence suggesting economic and housing troubles were imminent.

Likewise with JP Morgan. It doesn't matter that he was involved with the bailout its the circumstances and conditions outside of it that are more important.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Speaking of Fascism (as defined simply as when the corporate elite rule nations)... should they (we) save "Hitler's birthplace (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/hitler-birthplace-for-sale_n_1913783.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada")?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Now, now. Ryan and Romney don't want the Morgans of the world in control of our money supply. They want control of our money supply.

It's a simple but profound difference.