I'm sorry. I was explaining the ideas contained within an economic system called 'free enterprise' and 'capitalism' alongside the theories therein. You are referring to a political system when you speak about corporatism. Yes. Corporations do have legitimate power and influence because of their wealth over the governments of today - I agree. But you're wrong Matthew. The governments allowed this to happen in a sense, by not imposing regulations on CDSes, on capping 0 down rate mortgage loans, etc. But it's not because they intervened too much. And you're wrong. The elites like free markets because there is so much supply for the things they require in a free market. They like being able to stash their money in investments in Paraguay and Saudi Arabia because the free market gives them the option. Without the options of doing business and finding a better emerging market to invest in, the corporations can't grow tenfold like the way that they have been exponentially. And yes, the governments have allowed corporations to become bigger than governments. I think we are arguing the same thing, but from different sides of the fence. I'm sorry.
When I speak of the elite, I am not speaking of the super wealthy person that owns a mansion, or even three or four mansions. I am not even speaking of CEOs. I am speaking of the intergenerational banking families that create money out of thin air and literally own most of the world's land and resources. These people are after absolute power. A free market encourages competition, which they hate. They want full power in their hands, with just the crumbs doled out to the remaining population. This is why we are seeing things increasingly move away from a free market (whatever semblance of one there is) to a more managed economy. To the people at the top, money is nothing more than a control mechanism. It is a means to their end. It goes way beyond simply greed as the average person knows it.
It's all good to say that, and I do listen to you but it's very difficult to see through the internet what exactly you are talking about specifically and make my own opinion.
That's because they've done such a good job at hiding behind the scenes over this past century. Nobody even has a clue what's really going on. Rat is one of the very few people I've ever come across that can actually see past the veil of their illusions.
I have always wondered who THEY are through all this. I mean you have Kissinger and Brzezinski who are likely just upper level fronts, and than Rockefeller's, Rothschild's and Morgans slightly behind the scene...so, does it stop there? I don't think so. Who is above this chain?
Well, at the visible level it would appear to be the Rothschilds, as they represent the pinnacle of the global banking system. But even they too are high-level workers. The Rockefellers and Morgans are both subservient to the Rothschilds and fall below them on the proverbial pyramid. However, the people believed to be at the very top of the pyramid do not reveal themselves to the public, and there has been speculation of what families these might be, such as the Piso-Hapsburg bloodlines, which were the ruling bloodlines behind the scenes of the Roman Empire.
*rolls eyes* Then why don't you start a cult and a shrine in his name. For pete's sake. Trusting whatever Matt says blindly is just as stupid and ignorant as trusting what you hear on CNN.
I don't know. He hasn't said anything except "Matt speaks the truth, man". You tell me what he thinks.
i've known plenty of poor people throughout my entire life. most poor people can move past it if they really put their minds to it and try. i live in a small town in the midwest, it's been the same people down there for four to five generations that are on welfare. it's because most of them refuse to try and break the cycle. how can you expect people to feel sorry for you when you refuse to even try to do better for yourself?
The problem I have in the West is the notions of the "American Dream". People assume that we live in a world of equal levels of achievement and prefer a system of meritocy. We say to the poor "You're just not trying hard enough. I've seen people overcome poverty, and you my friend just have to try harder", when it's not really taking into account the reasons why 30% of the population sometime in their life will go on social assistance and have it as their main source of income. Poverty has somehow become a normal everyday thing. It's ordinary and expected to see someone begging in the street. People are desensitized to the poverty everywhere around them. We behave as if we work so hard to attain the things that we have. All the material possessions we work so hard for we get them by walking into a mall and buying goods from stuff made and assembled from all over the world and we think that this how the wealthy and financially stable ought to be doing. And you know, there are some people out there who don't want a car, a house, 2.5 kids and a dog. They want the freedom to live as minimalistically as possible, and why shouldn't they? Not everyone needs to accumulate stuff and more stuff and more stuff just so they can work for years breaking their backs and claim they did something with their life. Some people life soley off a little piece of welfare and cheat the system, and I say good for them. There is nothing to be ashamed of a meager salary if that's what you need in life.
