Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

Albert Einstein in his essay Why Socialism?

Of course Einstein's solution of a planned economy is disagreeable, but who honestly denies the above paragraph is true?

Why do you hate freedom?

Oh, boy.

kalm, most people aren't controlled by the wealthy few...most people are controlled by their laziness.

For all the talk about the concentration of power, and the rich controlling the information, most people don't want to be engaged at all. They'd rather watch a soap opera or some TV sitcom.

When faced with clear political choices, a large part of the population will never vote on specific issues, but instead they will vote strictly on their own prejudices.

We had a dumb woman run for re-election for city council. This woman was an idiot who, multiple times, didn't know the issues she was voting on (said she didn't have enough time to review the documents, so she voted on what she felt she heard instead of actually reading what was in the documents). When asking her supporters why they were voting for her, they said they liked her style. They could not name a single issue that they supported, and when provided information that showed she had tossed away a lot of money and repeatedly admitted she didn't know what she was voting on, the people shrugged their shoulders and said they liked her because she seemed nice.

Some council members wanted to extend the time that they had to read the documents on which they were to vote. The city staff said it would be too difficult to get council members the information another week in advance (huh?). So what did our representative do (the same rep who said she didn't have enough time to read the documents)? She voted that proposal down because she didn't want to inconvenience the city staff.

And yet this woman was reelected.

At least there were some somewhat honest voters that said they voted for her because they thought there should be more women on the council. They didn't care about the issues....just that a woman would be on the council.

Can you imagine if anyone said they wanted a white male to represent them on the council?

So yeah, you can try to blame everything on the rich folks and convince everyone that the rich control the agenda. But in the end, most people don't really give a rats butt about issues. They vote for absurd reasons that have little to do with actual issues.

We get the government that we have not because the rich are mean people who try to control everything, but because the masses want someone else to control their lives because they are too fvcking lazy and unfocused.

Not much to argue with. I'm going with Einstein over Cuck.

Btw, why do capitalists freak out when people try to capitalize their labor?

Einstein was obviously no Einstein

I remember from a recent biography of Einstein that, although he advocated a planned economy, he acknowledged that related bureaucratic forces could stifle human freedom. He was also a world federalist, of sorts, and an early supporter of the NAACP. His contributions to modern scientific theory and practice are so monumental that it's not worth picking a fight with whatever political views he may have held.

Ivytalk wrote:I remember from a recent biography of Einstein that, although he advocated a planned economy, he acknowledged that related bureaucratic forces could stifle human freedom. He was also a world federalist, of sorts, and an early supporter of the NAACP. His contributions to modern scientific theory and practice are so monumental that it's not worth picking a fight with whatever political views he may have held.

Einstein's major theories are under attack.

In time, as we become more educated, Einstein's most accurate contribution to science will end up being his paper on capillarity.

Cluck U wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I remember from a recent biography of Einstein that, although he advocated a planned economy, he acknowledged that related bureaucratic forces could stifle human freedom. He was also a world federalist, of sorts, and an early supporter of the NAACP. His contributions to modern scientific theory and practice are so monumental that it's not worth picking a fight with whatever political views he may have held.

Einstein's major theories are under attack.

In time, as we become more educated, Einstein's most accurate contribution to science will end up being his paper on capillarity.

What attack? Relativity? There's been some sniping, but nothing serious.

Cluck U wrote:Oh, boy.

kalm, most people aren't controlled by the wealthy few...most people are controlled by their laziness.

For all the talk about the concentration of power, and the rich controlling the information, most people don't want to be engaged at all. They'd rather watch a soap opera or some TV sitcom.

When faced with clear political choices, a large part of the population will never vote on specific issues, but instead they will vote strictly on their own prejudices.

We had a dumb woman run for re-election for city council. This woman was an idiot who, multiple times, didn't know the issues she was voting on (said she didn't have enough time to review the documents, so she voted on what she felt she heard instead of actually reading what was in the documents). When asking her supporters why they were voting for her, they said they liked her style. They could not name a single issue that they supported, and when provided information that showed she had tossed away a lot of money and repeatedly admitted she didn't know what she was voting on, the people shrugged their shoulders and said they liked her because she seemed nice.

Some council members wanted to extend the time that they had to read the documents on which they were to vote. The city staff said it would be too difficult to get council members the information another week in advance (huh?). So what did our representative do (the same rep who said she didn't have enough time to read the documents)? She voted that proposal down because she didn't want to inconvenience the city staff.

And yet this woman was reelected.

At least there were some somewhat honest voters that said they voted for her because they thought there should be more women on the council. They didn't care about the issues....just that a woman would be on the council.

Can you imagine if anyone said they wanted a white male to represent them on the council?

So yeah, you can try to blame everything on the rich folks and convince everyone that the rich control the agenda. But in the end, most people don't really give a rats butt about issues. They vote for absurd reasons that have little to do with actual issues.

We get the government that we have not because the rich are mean people who try to control everything, but because the masses want someone else to control their lives because they are too fvcking lazy and unfocused.

I think you raise some solid points here and I think there's room for both views to be true.

I recently had a conversation with a Chamber of Commerce official regarding an issue. He's a former political operative who's managed local and state wide campaigns. His suggestion was so and so is up for re-election this fall. Write him a $500 check and invite him out for lunch. Then wait to see who the primary winners are and write all of them $500 checks...Stick with the local candidates, they're much cheaper and have more time on their hands than the state reps.

The corruption is pervasive at every level. I'm not denying it's the reality but it's not the way the system is supposed to work. Look at it on a national level and it's the kind of thing that puts the world wide economy in a giant recession and incarcerates non-violent criminals for decades.

Yeah...so sue me for being idealistic.

I don't think it was corruption that put the global economy in the shitter as much as it was government stupidity and the stupidity of the central planners at the Fed.

CitadelGrad wrote:I don't think it was corruption that put the global economy in the shitter as much as it was government stupidity and the stupidity of the central planners at the Fed.

The financial services industry spent $5 billion dollars to repeal Glass-Steagal and pass the Commodities Futures Trading Act.

Without those two occurences, the bubble would have been much smaller.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:I don't think it was corruption that put the global economy in the shitter as much as it was government stupidity and the stupidity of the central planners at the Fed.

The financial services industry spent $5 billion dollars to repeal Glass-Steagal and pass the Commodities Futures Trading Act.

Without those two occurences, the bubble would have been much smaller.

Yeah, I don't suppose the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low for a couple of decades, Fannie and Freddie, and the Community Reinvestment Act had anything to do with it.

Sure, Wall Street took excessive risk by securitizing all of those shitty loans, but the proliferation of those shitty loans lies squarely on the government.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
The financial services industry spent $5 billion dollars to repeal Glass-Steagal and pass the Commodities Futures Trading Act.

Without those two occurences, the bubble would have been much smaller.

Yeah, I don't suppose the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low for a couple of decades, Fannie and Freddie, and the Community Reinvestment Act had anything to do with it.

Sure, Wall Street took excessive risk by securitizing all of those shitty loans, but the proliferation of those shitty loans lies squarely on the government.

Oh shit. I thought we were past this. How many lenders were fined for non-CRA compliance?

Cluck U wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I remember from a recent biography of Einstein that, although he advocated a planned economy, he acknowledged that related bureaucratic forces could stifle human freedom. He was also a world federalist, of sorts, and an early supporter of the NAACP. His contributions to modern scientific theory and practice are so monumental that it's not worth picking a fight with whatever political views he may have held.

Einstein's major theories are under attack.

In time, as we become more educated, Einstein's most accurate contribution to science will end up being his paper on capillarity.

Oh dear.


You almost have to be referring to his "cosmological constant" since the photoelectric effect, special relativity, and general relativity are all still on pretty solid footing. You're wrong though.

What he predicted certainly hasn't happened in THIS country.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Yeah, I don't suppose the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low for a couple of decades, Fannie and Freddie, and the Community Reinvestment Act had anything to do with it.

Sure, Wall Street took excessive risk by securitizing all of those shitty loans, but the proliferation of those shitty loans lies squarely on the government.

Oh shit. I thought we were past this. How many lenders were fined for non-CRA compliance?

Stipulating that, what about the REST of Cid's argument?

The big picture in this country is that capitalists are smothered by regulation they'd in large part rather not be subject to and the political party they'd rather not have in power has had the advantage for most of the past century. Sure, they have influence. But they are OBVIOUSLY not in control. There's no "capitalist oligarchy."

The only oligarchy we have is the Federal Judiciary. But that's another thread topic.

So my argument against what that very intelligent man said is that his predictions simply have not come true. Even if someone points to times in history where there were abuses those abuses provoked political backlashes. The idea that The People have been separated from influence on their government by capitalists just hasn't proven out.

JohnStOnge wrote:The big picture in this country is that capitalists are smothered by regulation they'd in large part rather not be subject to and the political party they'd rather not have in power has had the advantage for most of the past century. Sure, they have influence. But they are OBVIOUSLY not in control. There's no "capitalist oligarchy."

The only oligarchy we have is the Federal Judiciary. But that's another thread topic.

So my argument against what that very intelligent man said is that his predictions simply have not come true. Even if someone points to times in history where there were abuses those abuses provoked political backlashes. The idea that The People have been separated from influence on their government by capitalists just hasn't proven out.

So did you type that part with a straight face?

JohnStOnge wrote:What he predicted certainly hasn't happened in THIS country.

He is also known more as a theoretical physicist instead of an observational physicist. So, I'm sure you think his science is bunk as well.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:I don't think it was corruption that put the global economy in the shitter as much as it was government stupidity and the stupidity of the central planners at the Fed.

The financial services industry spent $5 billion dollars to repeal Glass-Steagal and pass the Commodities Futures Trading Act.

Without those two occurences, the bubble would have been much smaller.

Hell, I might as well pile on too...

Was Fannie and Freddie part of that "financial services industry"? You know, the guys who owned half of all home loans and invented the whole Mortgage Backed Security thingmajig.

JohnStOnge wrote:The big picture in this country is that capitalists are smothered by regulation they'd in large part rather not be subject to and the political party they'd rather not have in power has had the advantage for most of the past century. Sure, they have influence. But they are OBVIOUSLY not in control. There's no "capitalist oligarchy."

The only oligarchy we have is the Federal Judiciary. But that's another thread topic.

So my argument against what that very intelligent man said is that his predictions simply have not come true. Even if someone points to times in history where there were abuses those abuses provoked political backlashes. The idea that The People have been separated from influence on their government by capitalists just hasn't proven out.

So you're saying that god does play dice....

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
The financial services industry spent $5 billion dollars to repeal Glass-Steagal and pass the Commodities Futures Trading Act.

Without those two occurences, the bubble would have been much smaller.

Hell, I might as well pile on too...

Was Fannie and Freddie part of that "financial services industry"? You know, the guys who owned half of all home loans and invented the whole Mortgage Backed Security thingmajig.

Ah yes, the Fannie and Freddie dragged Wall Street kicking and screaming into the game, myth.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Hell, I might as well pile on too...

Was Fannie and Freddie part of that "financial services industry"? You know, the guys who owned half of all home loans and invented the whole Mortgage Backed Security thingmajig.

Ah yes, the Fannie and Freddie dragged Wall Street kicking and screaming into the game, myth.

They might have invented it, but they weren't the cause of it.

Well, Mortgage Backed Securities had been around for 50 years before the financial crisis.

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with them.

The problem is when they started getting into SUBPRIME mortgages.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oh shit. I thought we were past this. How many lenders were fined for non-CRA compliance?

Stipulating that, what about the REST of Cid's argument?

You're stipulating? You should know better.