How the U.S. government really works

[Moonlight Graham]

Above is an interview with Ralph Nader where he basically outlines how U.S. politics (and hence much of the world) works, and who actually controls U.S. government policy. The U.S. government, from the President to Congress, are puppets of the wealthy. The United States is a plutocracy, not a democracy. Corporations, powerful lobby/interest groups, and the military-industrial complex controls this world.

Most of what he says is nothing new, but unfortunately few seem to realize all of this outside those in Washington and the private wealthy individuals and groups pulling the strings behind the curtain.

[Moonlight Graham]

Also, these wingnuts who think there is some "New World Order" conspiracy of elites behind the curtain choosing who our government leaders are and centralizing our states to form a 1-state "world government" are missing these points. There is no hidden conspiracy, it's out in the open and anyone who knows how politics really works knows that its corporations pressuring our governments toward free-trade unions, NAFTA, the EU and the like, because it eliminates trade barriers and maximizes profits for these corporations.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[August1991]

... because it eliminates trade barriers and maximizes profits for these corporations.

And maximizing profit is a bad thing?

Or would you argue that it's better to take something of high value and turn it into something of low value?

[Michael Hardner]

I think the problem is that our systems of accounting bury the hidden costs of things that have to be paid down the line, like cleanup costs for the environment and health costs.

If we included these things, for a start, then short term thinking might get a well-deserved setback.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think the problem is that our systems of accounting bury the hidden costs of things that have to be paid down the line, like cleanup costs for the environment and health costs.

Yet both still contribute to economic output, just the same as anything in the "military industrial complex".

If we included these things, for a start, then short term thinking might get a well-deserved setback.

Not very likely....."I will gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today." - J. Wellington Wimpy

[Moonlight Graham]

And maximizing profit is a bad thing?

I never made any value judgment on free trade, good or bad.

That said, "maximizing profits" in general is what businesses do and is good for economic growth, however it all depends on the many different methods used to maximizing profits. Some are good, some are bad, and there's still a hell of a lot of horseshit in this world done in the name of profits.

BC's sig is "Economics trumps virtue", which if true would mean he would have been generally in support of slavery and European colonialism. It may be true because has claimed he has no sense of morality, meaning he is likely a robot (that's pretty cool!).

[bush_cheney2004]

....BC's sig is "Economics trumps virtue", which if true would mean he would have been generally in support of slavery and European colonialism. It may be true because has claimed he has no sense of morality, meaning he is likely a robot (that's pretty cool!).

My "support" is irrelevant, as slavery was an economic institution, not a morality play. Women were chattel for the very same reasons. Colonialism existed for economic reasons...deal with them objectively if you can.

[Moonlight Graham]

Colonialism existed for economic reasons...deal with them objectively if you can.

European colonialism also existed significantly for religious and power-politics reasons, among a myriad of other reasons.

One can examine colonialism and imperialism objectively, as with slavery, but eventually one is faced with judging whether aspects of it were "right or wrong". It's impossible to examine the entire subject without making value judgements on it.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

European colonialism also existed significantly for religious and power-politics reasons, among a myriad of other reasons.

The underlying motives were economic...including religion.

One can examine colonialism and imperialism objectively, as with slavery, but eventually one is faced with judging whether aspects of it were "right or wrong". It's impossible to examine the entire subject without making value judgements on it.

It is not impossible...it is a conscious choice.

[M.Dancer]

The underlying motives were economic...including religion.

It is not impossible...it is a conscious choice.

I salute your marxist world view

[bush_cheney2004]

I salute your marxist world view

A view necessary to better focus on Ayn Rand!

[M.Dancer]

focus on Ayn Rand!

Yikes! Run Run Run!

[bush_cheney2004]

Yikes! Run Run Run!

Coming soon to a theatre near you!

[August1991]

That said, "maximizing profits" in general is what businesses do and is good for economic growth, however it all depends on the many different methods used to maximizing profits. Some are good, some are bad, and there's still a hell of a lot of horseshit in this world done in the name of profits.

You make it seems as if there are different ways to maximize profits - and according to you some ways are good, others are bad.

That's not how I view the question. Maximizing profit as such is good. The way to a better life is to take something of low value and turn it into something of higher value. That, in essence, is what profit maximization does.

No society will long endure that engages in value destruction.

BC's sig is "Economics trumps virtue", which if true would mean he would have been generally in support of slavery and European colonialism.

Slavery and colonialism are features of the coercive State. Corporations rely on voluntary relations. In general, the freedom to choose provides more productive effort.

----

Let me add this other idea. The way to add value (ie. maximize profits) is through co-operation and co-operation is sometimes but rarely achieved through coercion.

[M.Dancer]

Coming soon to a theatre near you!

I went with a young lady decades ago, she was straight out of some snotty university in the States....she styled herself as an objectivist, yet she was very attractive and sexy when quiet.

[bush_cheney2004]

I went with a young lady decades ago, she was straight out of some snotty university in the States....she styled herself as an objectivist, yet she was very attractive and sexy when quiet.

Acting in objective self interest can be very sexy!

[Bonam]

I went with a young lady decades ago, she was straight out of some snotty university in the States....she styled herself as an objectivist, yet she was very attractive and sexy when quiet.

Went to what? The movie just came out.

[M.Dancer]

Acting in objective self interest can be very sexy!

Acting, absolutely.... incessantly talking about it not so much

[M.Dancer]

Acting in objective self interest can be very sexy!

Acting, absolutely.... incessantly talking about it not so much

[Pliny]

Above is an interview with Ralph Nader where he basically outlines how U.S. politics (and hence much of the world) works, and who actually controls U.S. government policy. The U.S. government, from the President to Congress, are puppets of the wealthy. The United States is a plutocracy, not a democracy. Corporations, powerful lobby/interest groups, and the military-industrial complex controls this world.

Most of what he says is nothing new, but unfortunately few seem to realize all of this outside those in Washington and the private wealthy individuals and groups pulling the strings behind the curtain.

Ralph Nader is a pretty far out guy. He is a european socialist and Obama has been a disappointment to him.

Let's see, corporate socialism....hmmm...Ralph mentioned that America is about coroprate socialism...that's familiar...oh yeah....Fascism. America is a Fascist state in his view.

He doesn't like the two party system... but knocks the rising tea party. I guess because it isn't about "leftist" socialism.

While, I can agree with Ralph that the corporate central bank colludes with the corporate US government in running the country I can't understand his belief that the people can redistribute wealth without a huge "organization" to do it. Those that work and produce will not altruistically sacrifice their lives to the welfare of others on a long term basis without some benefit to themselves. Coercion is the only method to do so and that would be a form of slavery. He insists that an agency exist to rob Peter in order to pay Paul. It takes no imagination to see that if there are too many Pauls that democracy will favour them and insist Peter be robbed and that it will only work in the short term before Peter is himself exhausted and becomes a Paul. Greece, Spain, Ireland, Iceland, the USSR, China, are all examples of where that system fails or is failing it becomes morally degraded, destroying the work ethic and then fails economically.

Russian Television of course doesn't have America's interests at heart so they are never too shy to interview leftist dissidents such as Nader - who insists the two party system means no communists are running in the federal election.

If change is desirable and the "plutocracy" you see existing must be broken up then what would you replace it with? It is, after all the centralization of power that gives you a plutocracy. How is power centralized? Probably, control of the economy is centralized first and that is done by, first monopolizing the manufacture of money, then devaluing it and finally replacing it with worthless currency so that the people hold no real means of savings. They cannot accumulate wealth.

Their "wealth", measured and stored in the now worthless currency can be wiped out at any time. Pension savings, home equity, cash savings of any sort can be zero in no time. The populace is then very vulnerable and can be easily cowed and frightened - by some "plutocracy".

Edited April 19, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Acting, absolutely.... incessantly talking about it not so much

I guess you were incessantly interested in something else?

[Moonlight Graham]

You make it seems as if there are different ways to maximize profits - and according to you some ways are good, others are bad.

That's not how I view the question. Maximizing profit as such is good. The way to a better life is to take something of low value and turn it into something of higher value. That, in essence, is what profit maximization does.

No society will long endure that engages in value destruction.

I'm not an expert in economics, so i don't know the ins and outs of "profit maximization" as a jargon term pertaining to that field.

However, i do know that profit = revenue minus cost. There are ways to increase revenue and reduce costs that are, in my view, ethical and unethical. In a real-life example, today i caught a contractor trying to dump his garbage on the side of the road at the top of my street and I told him to take a hike. He was trying to reduce his cost by throwing away his waste for free (while trashing up my neighbourhood) instead of having to pay to dispose of his waste at the city dump. His attempt to reduce cost, beyond being illegal, was also unethical in my view.

No society will long endure that engages in environmental destruction.

[Moonlight Graham]

A view necessary to better focus on Ayn Rand!

You fashion yourself an admirer of Ayn Rand?

Without an answer, you certainly seem to follow an Objectivist point of view. This would explain much, and would also explain why we seem to bump heads so often since i suppose one could call me a proponent of altruism as well as not agreeing with laissez-faire capitalism. I also believe that self-interest is at the root of much of the world's preventable human suffering & environmental destruction.

edit: altrium = altruism

Edited April 20, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

You fashion yourself an admirer of Ayn Rand?

No more than many other writers with interesting viewpoints....like...say...Donald Fagen!

Without an answer, you certainly seem to follow an Objectivist point of view. This would explain much, and would also explain why we seem to bump heads so often since i suppose one could call me a proponent of altrium as well as not agreeing with laissez-faire capitalism. I also believe that self-interest is at the root of much of the world's preventable human suffering & environmental destruction.

Agreed....as I would hold that "human suffering" is just part of the human condition regardless of meta-ethical concerns. The "environment" cannot be destroyed.

[Moonlight Graham]

Those that work and produce will not altruistically sacrifice their lives to the welfare of others on a long term basis without some benefit to themselves. Coercion is the only method to do so and that would be a form of slavery.

Keep in mind i'm not saying Nader is the almighty and i agree with his other views, i'm saying he's pretty bang on in what he says in the video. I'm not even that aware of many of his positions.

Yes, coercion (taxes) seems the most effective way to spread wealth within a state, as far as i know. I don't agree with the comparison to slavery. It's coercion. Generally, slaves are people who are legal property of others, with little or no rights for themselves.

He insists that an agency exist to rob Peter in order to pay Paul. It takes no imagination to see that if there are too many Pauls that democracy will favour them and insist Peter be robbed and that it will only work in the short term before Peter is himself exhausted and becomes a Paul. Greece, Spain, Ireland, Iceland, the USSR, China, are all examples of where that system fails or is failing it becomes morally degraded, destroying the work ethic and then fails economically.

Besides the communist countries, aren't most of the countries you mentioned having financial problems because of their debt? They obviously didn't balance the books well. There are many industrialized democratic countries with socialist elements that have done fantastic under a system of capitalism mixed with a substantial welfare state. These countries always seem to consistently be at the top of the Human Development Index rankings every year. Though i wouldn't describe myself as a "Utilitarian", this system seems the best system to ensure "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people".

If change is desirable and the "plutocracy" you see existing must be broken up then what would you replace it with?

I'd replace it with something more democratic. Where the number of consenting people, not number of dollars, determines policy. I don't have the solution to do this, but it would start with changing some of the campaign/party finance & lobbying laws.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Moonlight Graham