Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Why are people so inclined to assume that economies dominated by monopolistic entities are "more" capitalist? That's completely incorrect if you know the basic dictionary definition of capitalism.

Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

 

[Einherjar86]

That's a handy definition. Unfortunately, I don't know why people are so inclined to think that there can be a definitive definition of capitalism. Just as Sui Juris said in the article that Dak posted: "ALL SOCIETIES ARE CAPITALISTIC. The ONLY difference is who owns/controls the Capital. You don’t really think Communists are trying to get rid of Capital do you? Your either going to live under a Monopolistic Capitalistic Oligarchy, or a Competitive Capitalistic Republic. There aren’t any others."

My point is that if corporations and monopolies are instituting certain changes (or promoting them or simply unintentionally enacting them by the mere fact of their existence and influence), then capitalism is shaping itself into something new. There's no reason to assume that either the first version of capitalism instituted in this country, or that tidy little definition, objectively describe or embody the abstract, pristine ideal known as "capitalism."

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I'm not big on terms needlessly changing their definitions. What the tea party calls socialism isn't really socialism, and therefore hasn't magically changed from

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

to "first black president instituting controversial governmental reforms". Likewise, capitalism hasn't changed from the definition I gave above to "multinational corporations consolidating wealth and power into monopolies for the purpose of molding national governments into subservient puppet states". Capitalism as a concept hasn't changed, it's our society and economy that has.

 

[Einherjar86]

What the tea party calls socialism isn't really socialism

I agree, because they're accusing America's economic policies today of being socialist; but as I said, America is very much a capitalist country. There is no "pure" form we need to regress (or evolve, depending on how you look at it) back to.

Likewise, capitalism hasn't changed from the definition I gave above to "multinational corporations consolidating wealth and power into monopolies for the purpose of molding national governments into subservient puppet states". Capitalism as a concept hasn't changed, it's our society and economy that has.

But there is nothing in your definition of capitalism that prohibits multinational corporations from consolidating wealth and power. I don't care about the whole "puppet state" aspect; that's beside the point. What I care about is that there is no reason that your "original" definition of capitalism should preclude consolidation of wealth among vast global conglomerates. Thus, what we have today is very much still capitalism, and not some debased form of it.

 

[Badbird]

The United States is a mixed capitalist country. I find it funny that lot of these people you see in blogs like Dakryn posts are that they think Michael Moore is anti-capitalism, when it's anti-greed, not anti-capitalism. We still have capitalism in America. It's just not the one libertarians are advertising.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

You should work for Moore, he would love you!

 

[Einherjar86]

Because they share the same ideology, or because they both write incomprehensible drivel strewn with catch-phrases like "anti-greed"?

 

[Matt]

Ok everyone, I want your thoughts on this. I say these things would fix current problems we have with our government (politicians being shills for special interests, etc).

1. Publicly financed elections (NO campaign donations, ever)
2. Term limits. House/Senate limited to three terms. Possible to run again after a term away.
3. Somehow get rid of the 'corporations as people' act.

I think these three things would help prevent corporate America from controlling everything and destroying this country out of self interest. Thoughts on this?

 

[Dak]

EL OH EL at Moore being "anti greed". Michael Moore is interested in one thing, and that is profiting off the saps who watch his bullshit.

@Mathias: Why should people be forced to pay for the political circus more than they do already. More government is never the solution to more government.

Also, is it that corporations as people needs to go away, or is it people as corporations that needs to go away?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Can anybody honestly answer what the United States is doing in Libya? Why Not Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc...

Is it that The United States and European countries depend heavily on Libya for oil?

or that America supported Gaddafi for decades and feels responsible?

These are honest questions, not statements.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

It could be any of the above. Whatever would have happened in Libya without intervention would have had zero effect on our national security. On Saudi Arabia, there is no way in hell that the U.S. would attack them. The Saudi's would never let us, considering that only the Chinese own more of our shit than they do.

 

[Matt]

We like the fact that Saudi Arabia is stable anyway. I don't think the US cares whether a murdering dictator is in power or not if the region is stable and isn't hostile to us.

 

[Dak]

I like how the DoD is already getting boots ready to hit the ground all the while Obama is lying through his teeth about it not happening.

Obama is obeying the same puppet masters as Bush and those that came before him.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

and who are the masters?

 

[mutantllama]

Satan

 

[SentinelSlain]

It would affect EU security if Gaddafi got pissed off with us and stayed in power. He's blown up our planes and clubs before.

The fact that lots of European countries criticized him massively since he started blowing up protestors and applied sanctions against him left an awkward situation should he stay in power.

He's threatened war against Switzerland before because they arrested some relative of his for beating their servant. To be fair though, if a country like Libya tried to attack a country in that location with conventional military means they would be raped.

 

[Dak]

and who are the masters?

I'd imagine it's an extensive list, but we can start with Kissinger handling Obama.

We are now in more countries than under Bush. The defense budget has not been slashed, domestic spending has been massively (and unsustainably expanded), and the administration secrecy and arrogance has been carried over. Corporate and bankster cronies have been bailed out and given large sums of taxpayer dollars.

The dollar has fallen further, the economy is still down where Bush left it, gas prices are higher, Congress is halfway through the year without agreeing on a budget that Obama would sign anyway, etc.

The country is crashing and burning and Obama is golfing and doing conferences where he is openly lying about his strategy while being vague about what his strategy is supposed to bring about.

Edit: We don't really have to be worried about being taken over in war, the Chinese are merely buying our land and technology up with our otherwise worthless dollars and transferring the technology and production profits across the Pacific. At this point if there were to be any revolt here similar to what we are seeing in the Middle East, it will be Chinese peace keeping forces protecting their investment, with Obama's approval.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

You're more or less right, in a worst case scenario sense.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'd imagine it's an extensive list, but we can start with Kissinger handling Obama.

Most of what you said was what with some who, but I still appreciate your response.

Also, can you provide some evidence (maybe an article or two) of Kissenger's involvement?

and if you have the time and wouldn't mind - can you provide names on that extensive list? Unless that's just speculative.

 

[Dak]

I kind of have the time but at this point I have grown tired of redigging up information only to have some find fault with whatever source, when there is plenty of information out there.

Besides, when people do their own digging they often learn a lot more.

Obama has appointed members of the Trilateral Commission (a globalist thinktank) to most key positions. The list of current and former members of the TTC is a whos-who of prominent figures during the slide of America, from both sides of the fake right/left political landscape.