Science during the Supposed Pandemic

[BeAChooser]

I said: All Politics (from Communism to Capitalism) Are Controlled by the Ruling Class for the Ruling Class
http://mileswmathis.com/reed.pdf

JacMac said: Lloyd, first, I don’t agree with the above statement since I don’t think Trumpism meets that criteria. In fact, I think Trump and his followers are more akin to the Founders of this country who risked their “Lives, Fortunes and Sacred Honor” to do so.

Lloyd, I must point out that I'm the one who wrote that response: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =165#p6404 .

The rulers of both parties and of the parties of other governments are all related.

To a certain extent I agree, and they're mostly related because of the machinations of Fabian Socialists over the past century. As I've noted, I now believe there is a UNIPARTY consisting of top democrats and establishment republicans in the US, who work together behind the scenes to further the goals of Fabian Socialism. Up until Trump came along to challenge that, they were able to fool most American voters. They got into the habit of just trading places in the Oval Office every 8 years to give the appearance of a two party system. In public, top members of the two parties acted like they were adversaries, but in private they were VERY chummy. And when Democrats were in control there were major advances in the Fabian cause. But when Republicans took control ... even with both houses of Congress and the Presidency in their hands, little progress was made in rolling back the Democrat's progress toward a socialist/communist state. Top Republicans talked big, but they didn't actually walk the walk. There were always excuses ... often fear of a media reaction ... and the conservative voters accepted those excuses thinking that at least establishment Republicans were the lessor of two evils. In short, establishment Republicans were merely acting as placeholders until the next Democrat administration could again push the boundaries closer to outright authoritarian communism.

Over seas, the UK is still a bastion of Fabian thought. The London School of Economics and the Fabian Society remain well respected and there are many Fabians in the top rank of the government. Australia is now controlled by Fabian Socialists, too (and look what they're doing to the country using Covid-19 as the excuse). India went through a period controlled by Fabian Socialists but the death Nehru, Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi have set that effort back. Fabian Socialism is also alive and well in New Zealand. Israel has a growing Fabian presence, too. So yes, they are all related, at least to this extent. That's why they get together for meetings like the Bilderberger Group and the World Economic Forum in Davos.

They show that the leaders of socialist/communist movements were and still are wealthy aristocrats.

That's right. I can only think of one communist leader who practiced what he preached. The rest we're either already wealthy and became wealthier while in power or started out poor and became obscenely rich. Consider Mao's China.   His programs probably led to the starvation of 30-40 million people, during which time, Mao celebrated his 66th birthday with a huge feast for 80 of his closest advisors … a feast which included such Chinese delicacies as bird’s nest soup with baby doves and shark fin soup. While he ran a country where the average daily caloric intake was about 1500, he was a gourmet who had his favorite foods flown to Beijing from all over the country and world. In a country were housing was so tight that often three generations would live in one room, he had more than 50 estates, with whole mountains and lakes cordoned off for his private use. Such is the wealth of top socialists/communists.  Yet, many of Obama's closest associates and friends still idolize Mao.   Imagine that.
 
And the leaders of today’s China live a life that is luxurious compared to the average Chinese citizen.  One of the most sensitive topics in China … the one that will get a news organization’s website blocked from China’s internet for sure … is discussing the wealth of it’s leadership.  Reporting about their amazing, UNEQUITABLE wealth is what got the NYTimes and Bloomberg websites blocked.  Reports like this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ke-paupers “The richest 70 members of China’s legislature added more to their wealth last year than the combined net worth of all 535 members of the U.S. Congress, the president and his Cabinet, and the nine Supreme Court justices.”  Meanwhile, the average Chinese citizen made about $4,800 a year.    According to Bloomberg, the President of China, Xi Jinging, had a net worth in the hundreds of millions (at least) … of course all *held* by someone else in his family which has a reported net worth of over $1 Billion.   One of the reasons the NYTimes and Bloomberg were cut off from China’s internet is that they reported on that.   The leadership of China drive luxury sedans (their kids drive top end sports cars), have special schools for their kids, get organic food from special government owned farms, can depend on special medical facilities … and the even get purified air on those days when the average citizen is breathing dense smog from China's numerous coal fired power plants.
 
Or consider Stalin's Soviet Union.    Stalin’s SUMMER residence was immense. And he wasn't alone. While the average Soviet citizen later on was crammed into an apartment with ten others and endured considerable hardship, the Soviet leadership lived in luxurious secure communities with access to private supermarkets, private restaurants, private hospitals, private schools. They had private vacation resorts. They drove around in Zil luxury sedans and even had lanes reserved for them on Moscow highways called “Zil lanes”.    Meanwhile, the ordinary citizen in the USSR couldn't even get clean sheets and needles in the hospitals they had to use, assuming they could even get the medicines to fill them with.
 
Or look at North Korea.  Kim Jong-un’s net worth was estimated to be at least $5 billion dollars even though the country is one of the world’s most impoverished countries. According to a nice leftist source, he lived a life of  "unbelievable luxury" .  According to the Borgen Project, a campaign against poverty, most North Koreans earn between $2 and $3 PER MONTH.  A 2017 study by the United Nations revealed that 18 million people in North Korea (that's more than two-thirds the population) were not getting near enough food, and North Korean women are especially at risk of suffering from malnutrition.    Sorry, the picture painted by aspiring communists is not the reality.

How about Cuba?   Fidel Castro liked to claim he was a modest man (at times claiming he made just 900 pesos ($43) a month and lived in a “fisherman’s hut”).  But the reality is that he had a net worth of about a BILLION dollars (in comparison, the average income of Cubans was under $20 PER MONTH) and lived a life of luxury, according to his longtime bodyguard who wrote a book “The Double Life of Fidel Castro: My 17 Years as Personal Bodyguard to El Líder Maximo".  According to that bodyguard, Castro kept 20 secret, luxurious properties throughout the country, including one on an island that he accessed via his personal yacht.  On the mainland, his homes included an ‘immense’ Havana estate with a rooftop bowling alley, personal hospital and indoor basketball court, and a seaside villa with pool, jacuzzi and sauna" ... all while the average Cuban family lived in something like this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ02riFkBZA .    There are plenty of internet sources about this inequity.
 
And don't forget Venezuela.     Hugo Chavez died with a net worth of $1 BILLION dollar while the citizens couldn't even find toilet paper on the shelves of their local grocery store ... assuming they had enough money to buy a roll.  According to https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... posed.html , "the late-president's family owns 17 country estates, totalling more than 100,000 acres, with liquid assets of over $550 million stored in various international bank accounts, according to Venezuelan news website Noticias Centro."    But, of course, leftists like Sanders claimed Hugo was a *man of the people*.  
 

Trump is no hero and the founders of our country weren't either.

Sorry, but I do view Trump as a bit of a hero given that he has risked his fortune and life to try and stop the tyranny that Fabian Socialists were and still are trying to bring to America. And many of the Founders were equally heroic, with many of them truly risking their lives and fortune against an enemy that had the largest and most powerful military in the world, controlled by what amounted to a ruthless dictator. And unlike almost any politician you can name, Trump carried through with most of the promises he made to the best of his ability. And that's with all the UNIPARTY establishment embedded in the government and his adminstration working against him day and night. That's with almost the entire dishonest mainstream media establishment opposing him. That's with the DOJ, FBI and intelligence agencies you mention working against him. That's with much of Congress ... even key UNIPARTY members of his own party working against him. His opponents tried every trick they could to bring him down and didn't ... and still haven't. They only got back into power in 2020 by outright cheating in an election ... and this is undeniable to anyone who actually looks at the evidence.

the best info I've seen on economics is at https://mythfighter.com/ . The writer there is over 85 years old by now, I think, but he seems to be smart on economics ... snip ... Anyway, he explains on his site that some countries, like the U.S., the U.K., China, Japan and one or more others are monetarily sovereign. That means they can never run out of their own money. And they can create as much money as they want to improve their economies without significantly increasing inflation. Inflation is due to scarcity, not to too much money. Federal taxes are entirely unnecessary and are not used to pay for federal government programs.

Sorry, Lloyd, but I'm afraid the idea that increasing federal spending and printing money doesn't cause inflation is nonsense. Sundance at Conservative Treehouse agrees (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/bl ... to-differ/), after noting that Biden has essentially been making that claim ... that federal spending doesn't increase inflation.

Sundance observes:

Questioned today about inflation, Joe Biden starts talking about his Build Back Better program. It really is worth watching to see how oddly emphatic he is in the belief that if government pays for a thing (childcare, healthcare, prescriptions) the cost of that thing somehow mysteriously disappears.

Biden believes that if government subsidizes something there is no longer a cost associated with it. He believes this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ii3rV2sRDk&t=1300s

Setting aside the historic fact/truth that anything government pays or subsidizes ultimately costs more, the real cognitive dissonance in Biden’s worldview is that any cost associate with a ‘thing‘ disappears if the government pays for that ‘thing’. From that bizarre viewpoint, the disappearance of public expense for that government subsidized thing then creates “deflation”, or a lowering in overall prices.

This claim is abject nonsense. Truly and genuinely batshit crazy nonsense.

Example. According to Joe Biden’s talking point: if government pays for college education, the price of a college student’s car drops. It doesn’t. To make that claim is absurd in the extreme. The college student may have more money to pay for a car if they are not paying for tuition, but the car itself doesn’t change in price.

A person may have more money to pay for groceries if they are not paying for childcare expenses, but the price of the groceries doesn’t change. The inflation on the prices of products at the grocery store does not change just because some families no longer have daycare expenses. But Joe Biden believes it does.

Regarding the price of something once government starts subsidizing that something, consider this:

https://pics.me.me/price-changes-jan-19 ... 486957.png

Notice the correlation between the affordability of something once the government starts subsidizing it?

Perhaps the worst part of Joe Biden’s policy implementation is his actual belief in it.

This is what happens when your entire life is centered in a bubble or echo-chamber of academics, politicians and think-tanks that have no connection whatsoever to Main Street and common sense.

Likewise the notion that printing money doesn't cause inflation is not what most every economist in the world teaches. They teach that if you print more money, the amount of goods doesn’t change. But households will have more cash and more money to spend on goods so there is more money chasing the same amount of goods. Unless the goods supply is unlimited, firms will just raise prices in that event. And in almost every example you can names, the goods supply is not unlimited. So inflation is going to be the result of printing money. And history proves it. A further proof is that those countries that have printed large amounts of money have had their currency devalued by those countries that have not. That's clear evidence of inflation in the countries that printed lots of money.

You might also want to know that Rodger Malcolm Mitchell calls himself a businessman (President of Rodger M Mitchell Advertising) and an economist. But beware, I don't think he's who he claims to be. First, I find very little about his business and no details whatsoever regarding his education. I find nothing to indicate he's a degreed economist.

I did find several books by him published by his advertising company ... one in particular from 1977 titled "The Ultimate America: Unlimited Power and Total Control, Building Our Perfect World". I can imagine a Fabian Socialist writing such a book given that several already did (Wells, House and Chase). Here's what the book says on the cover

https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-America ... B0021ONTMY

This amazing book will change your life. Read how we will end federal taxes and prevent inflation -- how we will build a Medicare/Medicaid system that truly protects our health, and create a Social Security that truly protects our future -- all easily affordable. We will curtail poverty and make street crime disappear. Our schools will give our children the finest education. Our air, land and water will be clean and our infrastructure will be modern and the power of our army will end even the possibility of war. We will create a nation and then a world where we take control of our lives and our destiny. The system that will make it all possible: "The Ultimate America."

The Ultimate America is neither fantasy nor distant. It is real. It is imminent. It is within our grasp. We have the power, we have the knowledge and the money to make it happen. Now.

Now if he believed that pie in the sky utopianism back in 1977, do you really think he was a conservative? He claims to have "mostly voted Republican" prior to 5 years ago. Why wouldn't he have voted Democrat back then given those beliefs? The Republicans were even less likely to believe such nonsense back then, than now. So call me suspicious.

Furthermore, in the https://mythfighter.com link, he cites The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) and asks if that "Republican Party, led by William Buckley, still exist[s]" Now that is curious because the ISI and William F Buckley, Jr. have clearly been part of the Fabianization of America. Buckley founded the National Review, which we now know for certain by their anti-Trump statements and actions the past 7 years is a front for the RINOs in the UNIPARTY. You need only look at the titles of the articles they published to know this. You need only look at the other lead authors of the publication. So if Rodger Mitchell is saying Republicans should be like William Buckley, BEWARE.

Furthermore, in your supplied link, Bill Mitchell goes on to attack Republicans, not for their economics, but by saying their opposition to schools teaching Critical Race Theory is akin to "government book burning." Then he attacks Republicans for being against mandated masks. After that he attacks them for rightly questioning the legitimacy of the Democrat committee *investigating* the January 6th "capital attack". Then he cites a CNN list of "Trump's Lies". And it goes on an own, with the same sort of rants you hear from lifelong progressives these days. Seriously, does that sound like anyone who was EVER a Republican? Sorry, Lloyd, by what he wrote in that link you supplied, proves he is clearly a lifelong hardcore leftist ... which makes perfect since he apparently lived in Illinois before retiring to Florida. In fact, I doubt he was ever once voted Republican. I doubt he was an economist.

One last comment, there is a Bill Mitchell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Mitchell_(economist)) who is an economist ... a professor at the University of Newcastle in Australia. And he appears to be, ironically, a Fabian Socialist. A self proclaimed "progressive", he recently made a presentation to New Zealand Fabian Society: https://www.fabians.org.nz/index.php?op ... &Itemid=79 . You can see why Fabians would like the idea that money grows on trees like he suggests. And maybe in his old age, Roger M. Mitchell is confusing himself with this man?

And isn't it odd that almost everywhere one turns, one encounters Fabian Socialists? One begins to wonder why something that seems to have had (and has) so many tentacles in what's going on is not taught in school? It's hardly ever mentioned in the mainstream media or any media the general public might encounter. If you look at the description of the Fabian Society in the Encylopedia Britanica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... an-Society), you find just 141 innocuous words.

Fabian Society, socialist society founded in 1884 in London, having as its goal the establishment of a democratic socialist state in Great Britain. The Fabians put their faith in evolutionary socialism rather than in revolution.

The name of the society is derived from the Roman general Fabius Cunctator, whose patient and elusive tactics in avoiding pitched battles secured his ultimate victory over stronger forces. Its founding is attributed to Thomas Davidson, a Scottish philosopher, and its early members included George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, Annie Besant, Edward Pease, and Graham Wallas. Shaw and Webb, later joined by Webb’s wife, Beatrice, were the outstanding leaders of the society for many years. In 1889 the society published its best-known tract, Fabian Essays in Socialism, edited by Shaw. It was followed in 1952 by New Fabian Essays, edited by Richard H.S. Crossman.

NOTHING about it's Marxist roots. Nothing about it's real goals as stated by important Fabian Socialists like Stuart Chase and George Bernard Shaw. Nothing about it's influence on America politics. It's a total whitewash. Check out any encyclopedia and you'll find the same thing. Then go compare the above to the descriptions and length of Marxism. Ask yourself if that is not deliberate ... to keep the Fabian movement below the public's radar.

Programmers should be able to set up a simulation of a monetarily sovereign economy to see if increasing the money supply to various groups within the economy would increase economic activity without increasing inflation or not.

If modern astrophysics and climate alarmism has taught me anything, it's that most simulations are worthless and often misused by those with agendas.

[jacmac]

Thanks Nick for a review of my University economics classes.

And BeAChooser thanks for this correction

Lloyd, I must point out that I'm the one who wrote that response

And Lloyd I must admit I did not read the MMathis link above.
after a few paragraphs It made my head hurt.
I do read many of the links to recent articles in science and astronomy though.
Thanks for those.

[BeAChooser]

Here’s a (I think) wise and very interesting discussion about …

https://www.aier.org/article/science-and-the-pandemic/

“Science and the Pandemic”

As it observes …

Here’s a familiar but useful example. In almost all cases when you travel in an automobile you increase your chances of being killed or injured. If you’re the driver, you also increase your chances of killing and injuring other people – your passengers, other drivers, and pedestrians. Yet you nevertheless choose to travel by automobile, thereby proving that you value the increased convenience and speed made possible by automobile travel over either not making the trip at all or making it by some less-perilous means. To choose to travel by car is to choose to put your own life and the lives of many others in greater danger.

Importantly, your choosing to travel by automobile is not evidence of your rejection of science, of your irrationality, or of your being blinded by some dodgy ideology. Your choice, instead, is evidence that the outcomes and experiences valued by human beings include more than physical well-being. Your choice is evidence also of the reality that additional increments of many of these other outcomes and experiences – things such as convenience, comfort, time, pleasure, excitement, helping others, contentment, enlightenment – are very often worth more than are the increments of health and safety that are sacrificed by pursuing additional amounts of these other outcomes and experiences.

To recognize this fact (!) about human preferences is to recognize that epidemiologists and other natural scientists are emphatically not scientifically able to determine what is for us – the many individuals who comprise society – the best response to COVID-19.

... and ...

Complicating matters further are these two additional facts: First, society is comprised of millions upon millions of individuals and families; second, each individual’s preferences are uniquely his or her own. My preferences for safety and health almost certainly differ in their details from yours, and the preferences of each of us differ from those of Dr. Anthony Fauci, from Pres. Donald Trump, and from any television news anchor or writer for The Week. And because my preferences are best for me while yours are best for you, and because at least some of my preferences likely conflict with some of yours, there is no one collective set of preferences from which a scientifically discoverable “best” course of action can be chosen.

… concluding …

I believe that the realities emphasized above mean also that skepticism of proposed responses should intensify the more heavily the proposals rely on top-down, one-size-forced-upon-all commands and controls. Economics, after all, itself is a science. And perhaps its most important discovery is that the amount of knowledge that is productively put to use in society decreases as more and more decision-making responsibility is taken from individuals on the ground and given to officials occupying government offices.

I can think of no greater offense against a genuinely scientific attitude than to support policies – especially ones adopted in haste and in a panic, and which diminish the amount of information that is uncovered and put to good use throughout society – simply because these policies are recommended by some epidemiologists.

[Lloyd]

22024

IMPORTANT ECONOMIC FACTS

Note: I added the terms in brackets, i.e. money supply for debt. It seems ridiculous to me to refer to money as debt. Money is a means of exchange. It's not inherently something anyone owes someone else.

1. Fact: Money is the way modern economies are measured. By definition, a large economy has a larger money supply than does a small economy. Therefore, a growing economy requires a growing supply of money. QED
The graph below shows the essentially parallel paths of GDP vs. perhaps the most comprehensive measure of the money supply, Domestic Non-Financial Debt:
https://mythfighter.com/2009/09/07/introduction/
One could argue that money begets production or that production begets money, and both would be correct. The point is that money supply (i.e. debt) and GDP go hand-in-hand. Reduced debt [money supply] growth results in reduced economic growth.
...
3. Fact: U.S. depressions tend to come on the heels of federal surpluses [less money].
1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt [money supply] reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt [money supply] reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt [money supply] reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt [money supply] reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt [money supply] reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt [money supply] reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt [money supply] reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt [money supply] reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.
4. Fact: Recessions tend to come on the heels of reductions in federal debt/money growth (See graph, below), while debt/money growth has increased when recessions were resolving. Taxes reduce debt/money growth. No government can tax itself into prosperity, but many government’s tax themselves into recession.
https://mythfighter.com/2009/09/07/introduction/
_Reductions in federal debt growth lead to inflation
_Recessions repeatedly come on the heels of deficit [money supply] growth reductions, and are cured with deficit [money supply] growth increases.
5. Fact: The federal government gave itself the unlimited ability to create debt/money on August 15, 1971, when it went completely off the gold standard. This ability is called Monetary Sovereignty.
_Because the federal government now has the unlimited ability to create dollars, it neither taxes or borrows in order to obtain dollars. It simply creates them. Tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt.
...
8. Fact: Contrary to popular myth, there is no post-gold standard relationship between federal debt and inflation. (See graph, below)
...
_Inflation seems to have been more closely related to oil prices than to any other single element. (See the graph, below)
https://mythfighter.com/2009/09/07/introduction/

Important takeaways IMO: 1. federal taxes are a complete waste; 2. federal spending, like stimulus checks, improves the economy.

ECONOMIC NAME-CALLING

Socialism, communism, nazism, fascism, capitalism are vague words that have little meaning. My family and friends do things for each other without signing contracts or paying each other for the efforts. Does that mean we're evil socialists? If a community acts in a similar way, is it evil socialism? If a tribe or nation acts like that, is it evil socialism? Such words are pure nonsense. Bogeymen. The wealthy ruling class IMO wants us to fear anything that reduces the wealth they can siphon off of our efforts. [They want us to believe that such favor doing gyps the government out of taxes that we would otherwise owe for the extra income. They don't pay taxes, but they want us to pay as much in taxes as possible.]

JacMac said: I did not read the MMathis link above.
after a few paragraphs It made my head hurt.

The first paragraph is probably enough anyway for most readers. Here it is.
http://mileswmathis.com/reed.pdf
John Reed was a journalist and alleged Communist activist in the period of WW1. He allegedly wrote Ten Days that Shook the World. The reasons I looked again at Reed are basically two-fold: one, my recent paper on Marx [http://mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf] would naturally make anyone take a second look at anything to do with Marxism, Communism, or Socialism. Finding out how closely Marx was tied to the financiers of the middle 19th century should make anyone suspicious, and taken with all the other evidence I showed you in that paper, the best reading is that Marx was a mole and an agent. I will show you most of the same markers here with John Reed.

Re BeAC's lengthy post, I didn't read much of it. I notice some complaints about Mitchell. I don't know who Bill Mitchell would be, but Roger Mitchell I admitted right off that he's no good at all on politics or science, but his economics is about the best I've seen. I don't believe it's pie in the sky. I think his ideas about achieving prosperity for all are likely entirely realistic. What I quoted from one of his online webpages above should show that pretty well.
You can also check out SOCIALISM! The Green New Deal socialism monster under your bed
https://mythfighter.com/2019/03/19/soci ... -your-bed/

One more Edit. https://www.realnotrare.com/post/carrie-ryan
Q: Share your experience with any medical care and any diagnoses you have received:
_I just started seeing my 110th doctor/healer and my spine is messed up, which I knew, but he's had other patients who've started barfing blood after getting a COVID vaccine. From what I have found online in studies done, the J&J can attack spinal nerves...which seems to be what's happening. I'm also worried about brain blood clots as I have most of the symptoms.
Q: What do you wish others knew?
_That these vaccines are NOT safe and should not be mandated for people to keep their jobs! I never get sick. I take care of myself. What's going on is EVIL regarding censorship.

[jacmac]

Lloyd:

_Because the federal government now has the unlimited ability to create dollars, it neither taxes or borrows in order to obtain dollars. It simply creates them. Tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt.

and

federal taxes are a complete waste;

I would suggest this website takes partial truths and sweeping generalizations and comes up with something that sounds logical, but is
Basically nonsense. The exchanges of money between the Us government and the "public" is very complicated. and so much of the economy is in electronic dollar transfers, to and from the government in this case, it is easy to fall into some kind of weird place about this.
1. How is the cash I have in my house right now Debt ? What do I owe to whom ?
2. I know the Treasury and the Fed both can print money, and can or could contribute toward inflation, but I assume this is monitored but I don't know where that info exists.
3. There are Treasury bills. notes and bonds that the gov sells to real people for real dollars.
4. I could go on , but it all seems like one of those Escher illusion drawings where the stairs all go up but still meet each other.

There is a lot I don't know but I would not advocate no income tax based on the presented Mythfighter material.
By the way... who are they; what's their agenda ?

[JP Michael]

We're about to see complete societal meltdown once the crop failures, fertilizer shortages and supply chain shutdowns exhibit their full consequences. All the talk of economy and politics will be meaningless if you're starving.

[BeAChooser]

Lloyd … although I have located several sources that verify the details Rodger M Mitchell claimed (married with 2 daughters, BS from U of IL, MBA from Northwestern, etc), I remain suspicious of his claim to have been a Republican up till 5 years ago. That just doesn’t ring true given all that he’s written about social issues and hatred of Trump, and the content (as described on the cover) of his 1977 book, The Ultimate America”. Also, I’d like to point out that Rodger Mitchell has another book out, published in 2005, titled “Free Money: Plan for Prosperity”, which seems to be somewhat of a rehash of his earlier book. To me, that title says a lot about the soundness of his economics. Mine would be “TANSTAAFL.”

Now I’d also like to point out that the chart you mentioned in Mitchell's blog does not show the money supply. The labels on the graph say "GDP" and "Domestic Nonfinancial Sectors Debt Securities and Loans". That is not money supply. Second, his graph of that item doesn’t look at all like the one that the St. Louis Fed shows for the same thing (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TODNS). Why is that? And here are links to graphs of M1 and M2 money supply (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL and https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL). They don't look anything like what he called money supply. Maybe I’m missing something, but he’s lost me in the weeds.

Another observation is that Mr Mitchell says it is a fact that US depressions tend to come on the heels of federal surpluses then shows a set of years where supposedly there were federal surpluses followed by depressions/recessions. But I would point out that there was no federal surplus in the 1997-2001 period as he seemed to indicate. Since the founding of the Republic, National Debt was historically defined as the cumulative total of ALL deficits and surpluses. Using that rule, according to the Treasury Department’s own website, the National Debt went up during Clinton’s entire term. So there can’t have been a surplus. Clinton and the mainstream media just created that impression by changing the definition of National Debt (a definition that they later forced the Treasury Department to use). What Clinton did was pay down the Public Debt during his term. He paid down the Public Debt by borrowing money in the form of intergovernmental holdings ... which up till Clinton was included in the National Debt. In essence, Clinton just transferred money from one section of government to another … to hide the still growing National Debt.

Another observation. Mr Mitchell states “The federal government gave itself the unlimited ability to create debt/money on August 15, 1971, when it went completely off the gold standard.” Actually, it was FDR who took us off the gold standard … something that Fabians had long wanted. FDR issued an executive order to do so on April 5, 1933, right after entering office. He ordered all gold coins and gold certificates over $100 turned in for other money at $20.67 per ounce. The government soon took in $300 million of coin and $470 million in certificates. In 1934, the government changed the price of gold to $35 per ounce. This fictional increase in assets allowed the Federal Reserve to further inflate the money supply. In 1971, Nixon announced that the US would no longer convert dollars to gold at a fixed value, but for all intents and purposes we went off the gold standard during FDR’s time.

Socialism, communism, nazism, fascism, capitalism are vague words that have little meaning.

Respectfully, I disagree. In the real world, the government of socialist/communist nations and those of capitalist nations are quite different in terms of authoritarianism and freedoms. Those two words mean something. There is a significant difference between what REAL (not Fabian) conservatives want and what leftists (progressives, socialists, communists) want. And those ism also affects the economy. Before Fabians came along, the National Debt was relatively small compared to after. For most of the country's history, it was under $1 trillion. Then Fabians and their policies began to take effect ... starting about the time of LBJ. By 2000, it was about $6 trillion. And in just the last 22 years, with Fabians firmly entrenched in both parties, the debt has risen to $30 trillion ($2 trillion of which occurred during the last year) and that's without Biden successfully getting the additional $6 trillion plus that he requested in his first 100 days of office. If you want a horror story, check out the US Debt Clock (https://usdebtclock.org/index.html ), which currently shows the $30 trillion dollar debt. It's projecting a $52 trillion dollar debt in 2026, if spending continues at current rates. Even the OMB is projecting a $36 trillion dollar debt. You think the term Fabianism is meaningless, but it's going to affect you, because contrary to what Rodger Mitchell claims There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

[BeAChooser]

Now, since Lloyd appears to think the term Fabian Socialism means nothing relative to capitalism, let me introduce two additional sets of historical factoids regarding what I think has been going on the past 130 years and where we're possibly being led. More food for thought, if you will.

---------------

First, I’ve previously mentioned Stuart Chase, a self-admitted Fabian Socialist, as being an important figure in the march of Fabian Socialism across the landscape of America. That’s an understatement because Chase was one of the architects of The New Deal. In fact, the term "New Deal" came from the title of a book he wrote (A New Deal) in 1932. Here's a link to that book: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... &skin=2021 , which you can read online for free.

Chase was an important member of FDR's “Brain Trust” (who helped him plan what he was going to do if elected) and a top FDR administration official (along with some of the other Brain Trust members). But the Chase book you should really read, if you really want to know what's going on now and how we got into this situation, is Stuart Chase's second book, which he wrote in 1942, titled “The Road We Are Traveling”. Here’s a link to that book which is again free to download: https://ia802600.us.archive.org/29/item ... veling.pdf .

The book is a celebration of the Fabian plan to convert America’s free enterprise economy into what Chase called Political System “X”.  A celebration of planned economies. Of restraining capitalists. Of spreading the wealth. Of socialist thinking, in general. And a celebration of the progress that had been made during FDR’s administration towards those goals. Progress such as the implementation of Social Security, which arguably has impoverished (or at least made middle America far less wealthy than it would otherwise have been now) in order to make them more dependent on government.  The changes that Chase described is EXACTLY the type of world that Obama, Hillary, Biden and the republican members of the UNIPARTY are trying to force on all of us. 

It's not a coincidence that in 2012, Obama titled his spiffy Hollywood produced campaign video “The Road We’ve Traveled”. Obama clearly idolized FDR. He clearly saw himself as FDR's successor in the effort to turn America into "X" and for that reason, I’m certain that he read Chase's books. I think his campaign video was him gloating about the success that had been achieved towards the ends laid out by Chase in the first 4 years of his administration. It was an inside joke to those in the know. That’s how confident Obama and the Fabian cabal had become over time.

Obama said, at the beginning of his campaign, that he wanted to "transform" America … just like Chase said he wanted change America in his books. And I think Obama believed, just like Chase had predicted in his book, in a chapter titled “We Can’t Go Back”, that if enough pieces of society were transformed into Political System X, then conservatives would not be able to turn the ship around from the course Fabians had set. Which is why Biden (likely with Obama pulling his strings) is still busy "transforming" and "changing". They hope we can't go back ... we can only go "Forward" … just like Obama’s famous 2012 campaign slogan announced.  

Chase wrote in his Road book that “Whatever the change, it is going in the direction of more collectivism, more social control of economic activity, more government ‘interference’, less freedom for private business.” He said we “MUST employ collective action” and in fact said he sympathized with what he termed the “first road”, the direct and single-minded attack along the lines of what Stalin did. He even said “I am not seriously alarmed by the sufferings of the creditor class [capitalists], the troubles which the church is bound to encounter [remember, communists are Godless and the State is their religion], the restrictions on certain kinds of freedom which must result [freedom means nothing to a communist], nor even by the bloodshed of the transition period [shooting capitalists]. A better economic order is worth a little bloodshed.” Remember ... this was the man that FDR brought into his administration in a key position … who helped guide FDR’s thinking ... a member of his Brain Trust.
 
Another of Stuart’s "roads" to the future (the third one, out of three) was that "an aroused citizenry forces its government to revise much of its business law, to institute certain powers and controls which will attack the problem of distribution at its source, intelligently, and not too violently, and with increasing thoroughness." That certainly sounds like what Obama, Biden, Pelosi and other Democrat Party leaders, as well as the leftist mainstream media, have tried to make happen right now. Don't you think?  And Chase wrote: “The road to violent revolution is blocked. The road to business dictatorship [that was Chase's second road] has mud holes and soft shoulders. Other nations may follow one or the other in the next few years, but hardly the United States. We turn to the third and last road: the drastic and progressive revision of the economic structure avoiding an utter break with the past. It must entail collectivism pushed at last to control from the top, but control over landmarks with which we are reasonably familiar.”

He was describing the exact approach that the Fabian Society laid out when it was first founded over a hundred years ago … the year of Marx’s death. One based on infiltrating existing government and organizations. And note the use of the word “progressive”. Progressive has been just a code word for someone who believes Fabian socialist (i.e., communist) thinking, perhaps not even realizing it ... useful idiots, as Lenin would have said. Obama is proud of being a progressive. He’s been quoted saying "I am a progressive Democrat, I am proud of that. I make no bones about that."

Chase continued, “It may entail a temporary dictatorship; I do not know.” He was clearly not opposed to dictatorship. Communists never have been. He just wanted the useful idiots to believe the dictatorship would be “temporary”. A wolf in sheep’s clothing (which happens to have been the coat of arms of the Fabian Society when it formed … now it’s a slow moving turtle). But experience proves that dictatorships are never temporary. The elite socialists and communists at the top NEVER willingly step down once they seize the reigns of power. And even Chase had to have known that. He was just being a wolf in sheep’s clothing ... deluding the unwashed masses about what's coming.

And the next part of Chase’s book is sobering because I think it describes the situation we find ourselves in now. Speaking of the US, he wrote “Here is a nation of some 75 million adult citizens, conditioned to certain habits, certain ways of thinking. The economic system they have known is collapsing under them. They are bewildered, afraid. A majority is perhaps already convinced that extensive revisions are in order, but if those reforms put them back where they were in 1928, many would ask no more. With a good job, a new car, a television set, the mortgage reduce, the life insurance policy paid up, and money in the savings bank again, life would seem almost too good to be true. But an intelligent minority was not satisfied with 1928, and considerably augmented in number, it will not be satisfied with anything short of a definite measure of economic security in the years to come. … snip … This, if it be large enough, is the group which counts. Far short of a majority, it can carry the mass along, if only it be convinced where to go. Four people out of five with whom I talk today are expecting fundamental changes. Before the ravages of deflation cease, I believe that the numbers of the intelligent minority will be sufficient to sway the inert mass; the farm laborers, unskilled workers, the less independent-minded of the skilled laborers, clerks and farmers. In opposition, we shall find bankers, brokers, large investors, speculators, the more stupid of the industrialists and small business men, the majority of lawyers and accountants, all the Elder Statesmen. I use the word stupid advisedly. The objectives of the group favoring change, as formulated at present or in the immediate future, will be to the advantage of industrial stability, and to the disadvantage primarily of large creditors and speculators. … snip … My contention is that the intelligent minority, whether or not it is destined to become a new economic class, will now permit more change than at any time since the Republic was founded — excepting for a few months during the War — and that is a good beginning. It will swing to the left, but only for a certain distance. That is enough too. When we reach that signboard, it will be time to explore the next section.” Sound familiar?

I think Obama and his fellow UNIPARTY Fabians, reading that passage, decided that we are now ripe to see the third road come to fruition. That the masses of people can be convinced to accept socialism, even if it is called socialism. No more hiding is required. Hence the coming out of the Fabian Society in the UK with them proudly displaying the Fabian Wall to the public. Hence a guy like Sanders openly running as a socialist. Hence, even Obama and Hillary being more open about socialism. I think a Fabian socialist would probably say the masses might even accept communism now, if prettied up a little to sound wonderful. But don't be fooled. As Chase said in the book’s next to last chapter, “This is the program of the third road. It is not an attempt to bolster up capitalism, it is frankly aimed at the destruction of capitalism, specifically in its most evil sense of ruthless expansion. The redistribution of national income, the sequestration of excess profits, and the control of new investment, are all designed to that end. If these methods, or others direct to the same goal, cannot restrain anarchic momentum of capitalism, there is nothing for it but wait for the precipice, striving to organize in advance the revolutionary forces which will then be liberated. Such is the Communist’s position, and from a certain philosophical point of view, there is much to be said for it.” 

And despite all that, FDR gave Chase a top position in his administration. Convince me FDR wasn't a Fabian. And Obama idolized FDR and has pushed the same themes. He has just been more careful not to admit his goal is the end of capitalism. But make no mistake … that’s where the movement guided by Soros, Obama, Hillary, Sanders, Biden and the other top DemocRATS is now headed. And if you think that’s meaningless, you’re mistaken.

And one last comment about the contents of Chase's second book (which I recommend everyone read), in the last chapter of the book, he wrote, “the intelligent minority cannot too soon set about organizing itself into shock troop units in every community in the Republics, working under a national coordinating body [the Democratic Party, I would think]. The purpose of the units is to unite like-minded people for their own education and for that of their communities on local and national economic problems. These local groups can form the nuclei for pamphleteering and for political organizations, in many cases. They will be particularly interested in making connections with local labor unions, farmers’ and consumers’ organizations, supply an outlet and a dynamic program to stimulate and unify these bodies.” If you ask me, that sounds exactly like Obama’s community organizing, doesn’t it? And thanks to Obama, communists are alive and well, and living amongst us. And calling themselves progressives, Democrats, Democratic Socialists, and in some cases Republicans. This is the nature of the threat we face. And there’s no way to pretty it up.

--------------

Now I said I had two sets of factoids. The second concerns another book, written by (I believe) a Fabian Socialist. Ever hear the name Edward M. House (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House)? Most people haven’t, yet he was a key figure during Fabian Socialist Woodrow Wilson's administration. He help Wilson get elected, then helped him establish the income tax, the Federal Reserve System, the League of Nations (in fact, he coined the name) and the Council of Foreign Relations, CFR (House participated in a meeting in Paris which laid the groundwork for the organization). These are all are things the Fabian Society had written they wanted, just like the gold standard.

Edward House attended school in England as a young boy and regularly visited there after he grew up. My suspicion is that he came into contact with Fabian Socialists, and in later years, House indeed surrounded himself with Fabians. Now here’s the kicker. A year before Woodrow Wilson ran for office (the winter of 1911-1912), House wrote an almost prophetic book, titled “Philip Dru: Administrator”. You can read about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Dr ... inistrator . House said he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx”. The book was a fictional plan for the conquest of America by gaining control of both the Republican and Democratic parties and then using them to create a socialist world government. The book’s plan included a graduated federal income tax, a central bank, a social security program, an inheritance tax and suggested taking functions away from the states. The character Dru in the book said “Our Constitution and our laws served us well for the first hundred years of our existence, but under the conditions of to-day they are not only obsolete, but even grotesque." The book suggested a conspiracy "insinuated into the primaries, in order that no candidate might be nominated whose views were not in accord with theirs."

Now note, House sent a copy of he book to future Wilson cabinet member David F. Houston. Houston declared the work economically sound. Wilson read it, supposedly after his election, but I wonder if it wasn’t before, given that House actively helped elect Wilson. And Wilson said this about their friendship … “It was remarkable, we found ourselves in agreement upon practically every one of the issues of the day. I never met a man whose thoughts ran so identically with mine." House concurred and in a letter sent to his brother-in-law Sidney Mezes, wrote, "It is just such a chance as I have always wanted, for never before have I found both the man and the opportunity." Opportunity for what? Well, sure enough, after Wilson got into office, he went about enacting many of the things called for in House’s plan. In fact, the great American historian, Arthur Howden Smith, wrote “"In nine months the Wilson administration completely reorganized the financial structure in accordance with the conceptions outlined in 'Philip Dru.'" And, by the way, House’s scenario for the election also sounds eerily similar to what happened in the election between Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. You see, both were closet Fabian Socialists, so in truth, Fabians couldn’t lose that election now matter how it turned out.

Now it’s known that FDR, Assistant Secretary of the Navy at the time under Wilson, also read the book. Maybe that’s why later he would enact Social Security, further destroy the Constitution and work toward a world government (a task that Truman, arguably another Fabian, finished during his Presidency)? All those were things imagined in House's book.

Finally, I would note that the election scenario outlined by Dru in the book reminds me of what the UNIPARTY has been doing recently … secretly Fabians (democrats and RINO republicans) against each other. It seems that history does repeat because we never learned from it.

Re BeAC's lengthy post, I didn't read much of it.

Oh well. I tried. These last two posts may have been an exercise in futility, too. But maybe others will find them informational. Be well.

[BeAChooser]

We're about to see complete societal meltdown once the crop failures, fertilizer shortages and supply chain shutdowns exhibit their full consequences.

Crop failures are not the major reason for what's about to happen. It's Fabian Socialism.

But yes, hard times are coming. Hope everyone out there in EU land is prepared.

[jacmac]

Well, we know how you feel about the Fabian socialists BeAChooser
but, I would like to hear what your vision of a good Federal government would be.
Perhaps a list of those gov functions to remain, (and any new ones?)
And a list of those you would completely eliminate or seriously reduce.
Perhaps there might be some agreements among us.
Jack
Ps. I would suggest we don't get into debate about the make up of various parts, like the tax system for example,
but a simple list of what to keep and what to get rid of just to get an idea of your ideals for the Fed Govt.

[BeAChooser]

I would like to hear what your vision of a good Federal government would be.

The truth is that unless we stop the march of Fabian Socialism, whatever else you or I want is moot. It's not going to matter. So I'm not going to waste my time here debating minutia. I'll just say my vision is, obviously, not what the Fabians want. Indeed, I want the opposite. And what is the opposite? Have you read Stuart Chase's second book, "The Road We Are Traveling"? It's not very long and very informative as to what Fabian's want. In particular, Stuart explicitly spelled out the characteristics of Society "X", the Fabian goal for our country. He spelled out what the Fabians want in the way of a Federal government to run that society ... what powers the Federal government needed. If you won't take the time to read the book, then perhaps this list, from Wikipedia's article on Chase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Chase), which accurately summarizes what Chase wrote, will suffice:
 

1. A strong, centralized government.
2. An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms.
3. The control of banking, credit and security exchanges by the government.
4. The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works.
5. The underwriting of social security by the government – old-age pensions, mothers’ pensions, unemployment insurance, and the like.
6. The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care, by the government.
7. The use of deficit spending to finance these underwritings.
8. The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.
9. The control of foreign trade by the government.
10. The control of natural resources.
11. The control of energy sources.
12. The control of transportation.
13. The control of agricultural production.
14. The control of labor organizations.
15. The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline,community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities.
16. Heavy taxation, with special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.
17. Control of industry without ownership.
18. State control of communications and propaganda.

More than anything else, I want a Federal government without those things.

I trust you do too, because that list is pretty much the same as the ten essential planks of the Communist Manifesto ...
 
• Abolition of Private Property.
• Heavy Progressive Income Tax.
• Abolition of Rights of Inheritance.
• Confiscation of Property Rights.
• Central Bank.
• Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation.
• Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture.
• Government Control of Labor.
• Corporate Farms and Regional Planning.
• Government Control of Education.

I don't see much difference between “X” and that ... not in any significant way.  

I do want to warn you that I think the rest of the Wikipedia article tries to minimize the importance of Chase in spreading Fabian Socialism. For one, the article mentions the word Fabian just once, suggesting only that Chase was influenced by Fabian Socialism. Fact is, Chase was a member of the Harvard chapter of the Fabian Society. After leaving Harvard in 1910, Chase joined the Boston Fabian Club. When he moved to Chicago in 1917, he started the Fabian Club of Chicago. There is no question he was a Fabian Socialist and there's no evidence he ever stopped being a Fabian Socialist.

In fact, in his first book, "A New Deal", he wrote "Best of all, the new regime (a Fabian Socialist regime) would have the clearest idea of what an economic system was for. The sixteen methods of becoming wealthy would be proscribed (punished)--by firing squad if necessary--ceasing to plague the orderly process of production and distribution. The whole vicious pecuniary complex would collapse as it has in Russia. Money-making as a career would no more occur to a respectable young man than burglary, forgery, or embezzlement." And the last sentence of that book is “Why should Russians have all the fun of remaking a world?” He admired the Soviet planned economy and he was alluding to the motto on the Fabian Window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Window) created by Fabian George Bernard Shaw ... "Remould It Nearer To The Hearts Desire", written above an image of the founders of the Fabian Society, Sidney Webb and Edward Pease, hammering the earth set on a blacksmith's anvil.

Wikipedia says "In 1927, Chase traveled to the Soviet Union with members of the First American Trade Union Delegation". The reality is that Chase went to the USSR with Rexford Guy Tugwell, another noted Fabian Socialist who also ended up in FDR's administration. They met with and interviewed Stalin and Trotsky. Returning to America, Chase described the Soviet Five Year Plan as a “courageous and unprecedented experiment.” In an address to the American Economic Association in 1931, he invoked Stalin's Russia as a vision for America's future, saying "There is no denying that the contemporary situation in the United States has explosive possibilities. The future is becoming visible in Russia." He said "The first series of changes will have to do with statutes, with constitutions, and with government.... It will require the laying of rough, unholy hands on many a sacred precedent, doubtless calling for an enlarged and nationalized police power for enforcement.... Planning will necessarily become a function of the federal government; either that or the planning agency will supersede that government.... It has already been suggested that business will logically be required to disappear. This is not an overstatement for the sake of emphasis; it is literally meant."

And despite such overt radicalism, Chase was made a member of FDR's innermost circle ... his so-called "Brain Trust" which helped him plan the New Deal and many other things he implimented during his administration. What's really scary is that in 1937, FDR told Chase's father that his son was "teaching the American people more about economics than all the others combined." Mind you, he was talking about an *economist* who was a communist and who in 1929 wrote a book titled "Men and Machines" where he predicted that the creation of machines to do the work that man did would soon destroy the American economy. Chase didn't even understand that a machine that destroys one job can create others. He was a modern day Luddite.

And think about it ... among the small group of people most influencing FDR's thinking on economic issues and restructuring the government ... his "Brain Trust" ... were not only Stuart Chase but Rexford Guy Tugwell, Felix Frankfurter, Henry A. Wallace, Walter Lippmann and Harold Laski ... all admitted Fabian Socialists. And most of the others in the Trust were undeclared Fabians, but socialists/communists none the less ... such as Harry Hopkins, Francis Perkins (friend of Fabian Eleanor Roosevelt, Fabian Beatrice Webb, and Fabian Arabella Susan Lawrence) and Sidney Hillman. And most of these people eventually ended up holding high official offices in the FDR Administration, just like Chase did.

Another complaint I have about the Wikipedia article is that it gives the impression that Chase was not a communist because it states "Chase criticized the government of the Soviet Union, stating that its citizens, trade unions and farmers "had no power" despite the claims of Communist supporters." Unsaid is what power would those groups have in Chase's Society "X"? I think in saying that, Chase was just practicing the stealthy and deceptive tactics advocated by the founders of Fabian Socialism to hide their true nature. The same thing applies when Wikipedia states Chase "dismissed the Communist Party USA as 'our minuscule menace' whose members consisted of 'a high proportion of frustrated neurotics and plain crackpots as well as some high minded-idealists — a tragic group, this last.'" What's not said is that by the time that statement was made in 1952, Fabian Socialists (who are communists at heart) were already viewing the Soviet/Chinese style communists who made up CPUSA as opponents to their dominance. And Chase was not the first Fabian to pretend to be anti-communist. Remember, deception is a fundamental part of the tactics of Fabians.

My final comment, and one appropriate perhaps to the theme of this thread, regards Wikipedia saying "After the war, Chase became involved in social science. In 1948, he published The Proper Study of Mankind in which he introduced the social sciences to several college campuses." My opinion is that Chase was just doing what many Fabians have done ... propagandize the next generation through schools and books. Sidney and Beatrice Webb did this in America just a decade after founding The Fabian Society. More recently, William Ayers did this. So naturally Chase found his calling doing it too. But what did Chase's book say? He argued that poll takers and social workers should have governing status in society. He wanted public opinion polls run by the government "with men at the top whose integrity rivals that of the Supreme Court" ... which is ironic given that our government now seems to be inordinately influenced by polls and the men (and women) on the Supreme Court these days who lack integrity all seem to be UNIPARTY Fabian Socialists. He proposed that Social *Scientists* run the country, saying that "no government department, corporation, union" should "think of making important decisions without consulting" them. Anyone out there think that's a workable or wise suggestion? I certainly don't.

[jacmac]

Since you took time to provide those lists and comments, I'll take some time to respond.
A few general comments:
The 1920's and 1930's was a long time ago.
Never heard of Chase.
Times were bad. A lot of good people were interested in communism.
They needed something. Some were too slow to see that the Soviets were Totalitarians. etc.
The great depression was a very big deal.
FDR was himself rich. He tried to help the people. He was popular.
He was elected four times. There were votes in congress to enact his programs.
Many worked and life got better for many people.

I call myself a progressive Democrat, but I don't like some things the Democratic party emphasizes.
They blew it by abandoning the blue collar working people, but the Republicans were worse. IMO

An example: New York lets in the new Uber/ computer/ private citizen system of getting a ride.
Did they do anything to properly transition from the controlled taxi cab business, which they controlled, to let in Uber ? no.
Did they tax Uber for a transition period to buy back expensive taxi medallions that were going to be in excess ?... NO.
The medallion market collapses. People are hurt. Bad unnecessary politics.

I really don't see our country getting as close to the far left as you think.
The income disparity between rich and working people is extreme now.
A recent study places the taxes actually paid by the wealthy is around 8%,
People blame the government for a lot of problems. but I think the control and influence of dark money behind elections
is what's really the main problem. I liked this bumper sticker: "I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one !"
Corporate power is dominant now.

The long list:
1. A balance between feds and state is best. we are a big country.
2. The executive is a bit too strong now. Congress has given away too much power.
3. That's complicated. the president appoints the Fed chair, then the bankers do their thing. It seems to work. sort of.
4. The military is too big, but people vote for it. Public works... the roads and bridges and rail(ha ha) we are pitifully behind.
5. No, Our social security system is paid for by the workers, Congress does not want to pay back all it has borrowed from the SS surplus over many
years, SS is solvent. Workers pay into unemployment insurance and deserve to get it when needed.
6. I am in favor of a single payer Health care system. All the other advanced countries have it. We are in a complex nightmare of health care.
7. We know how to deficit spend when we need it , but we were supposed to pay down debt when times are good, that has not happened.
8. People were not turning in dollars for gold I don't think anyway. It's all based on "the full faith and credit of the US Gov. " and the Republicans
have finally seen the light, it seems, on taking us to the brink on that one. Much of the world economies are based on the US dollar (China
not withstanding...yet)
9. No. Free trade is basically good if all countries do it. If not protect where necessary.
10. Giving away the public lands , waters, radio wave frequencies etc without reasonable compensation to the public is a big problem IMO.
The basic roll of government is to do what is in the common good to be done, Public lands etc. is an obvious responsibility of gov.
11. Too complex.... see no 10.
12. Ha Ha . I wish they would fix my truck, now that would be a GREAT thing !!!
13, No. They give a lot of money to farmers. It seems like a big subsidy to the big farmers. Do they help the food production and markets ???
I don't really know.
14. Reagan broke the Air Traffic Controllers, The unions have gone way down in strength and political power. They were sometimes not too smart
and sometimes just steamrolled. Without the unions we would all be working six, ten or twelve hour days, and our kids too.
It's time for more worker power.
15. I was a VISTA volunteer. They tried to draft me when I was 27. Wasn't going in. Voluntary is fine.
16. That is not happening here. Some socialist countries have higher taxes, but they get a lot for them. What do we get ? O right the worlds best
Military. And millions living in cardboard boxes. It's disgraceful.
17. Industry controls us without ownership. I would not worry about that happening any time in the near future.
18. State total give away of tv and radio frequencies for peanuts has enabled the private commerce sector to reap their consumer propaganda
on us big time. Adds targeting young children are evil. Turn off your tv. Read a book.

That's about it for me tonight. I, like most of us, have many RANTS to offer, but not enough time.
These are some highlights.
jack

[jackokie]

@jacmac We are getting somewhere with this discussion, unlike other venues where it is mostly snark and prevarication. Thank you for laying out your position so well. There are a few things I'd like to bring up, prompted by the points you raised.

1. It's true the 30's and 40's were a long time ago, but events can generate ripples that reach far.
2. Engaging in dialogue is difficult when people can't agree on the facts. From a website I visited this morning: "Dolt 45 is a fascist that hates democracy. He is human in name only." Too many people are unwilling to consider that someone may have an agenda behind what they are telling them. There are too many people who will happily repeat the calumny de jour without ever checking it out.
3. I believe the central cause for the lack of balance you refer to is the 17th Amendment, because it destroyed the balance between the States and national government. The Founders' intended the Senate to be the States' house, where Senators would represent the States' concerns and interests as defined by those elected by the people of the State: The State Legislature.

Under the Founders' vision the actual first duty of a Senator was to oppose anything inimical to the State's interests. The introduction of the Income Tax pitted the States taxing power against that of the national government, and with the direct link between the Senators and State legislatures broken, it led to the disproportionate ratio of tax collections any average W2 exhibits. It also led to the States' responsibilities being subsumed by Congress, with it playing favorites with federal grants back to the States.

I believe the only thing that can restore the balance is to repeal the 17th Amendment with the repealing amendment stating clearly that the State Legislatures have the sole responsibility for defining how Senators are elected, and may at any time recall and replace one of their Senators. Then the States can tell their Senators to reject any budget or tax proposal that would make the total tax burden for their citizens excessive. So California can do things their way, and Florida can do things their way, There is buzz again about an Article V Convention. If such were to occur do you think repealing the 17th Amendment as I have described it would help secure the balance you've referred to?

4. Not meaning to tar you with the same brush, but progressives seem to not go back and check to see if their policy proposals actually worked. As an example, progressives forced the lowering of college admissions requirements in order to see more Black students enrolled. As a result a disproportionate share of these new students failed and / or dropped out because they were not prepared. Did this "progressive" policy help them? Why not recognize these students were starting out less prepared and push for focused college prep courses, perhaps at local community colleges, so these young men and women would be more likely to have a positive college experience? Maybe even volunteer to teach one of those courses?

5. My grandmother was a big dog in the local Democratic party in the '20s and '30s. She was instrumental in bringing Kindergarten to Oklahoma, facing down our legendary governor "Alfalfa Bill" Murray. She helped break up a scheme where some members of the Oklahoma City school board were forcing kickbacks from teachers; those members went to prison. She was a speech writer for Senator Bob Kerr. She once faced down a group of KKK, some of whom she recognized and shamed. Jack, it wasn't possible to grow up with that lady and not have her brand of progressivism rub off on me. Today, where can that progressive spirit find an outlet? I look at SpaceX and see progress. I see energy independence and see progress. I see a lower tax burden and higher wages, especially gains for minorities, and see progress. I see record low unemployment and record high employment for minorities and see progress. Then I see the power of the government abused during the pandemic and see regression. The world is certainly topsy-turvy compared to the past.

[jacmac]

Thanks jackokie:

. I believe the central cause for the lack of balance you refer to is the 17th Amendment, because it destroyed the balance between the States and national government.

You may have a point; I didn't know about the 17th amendment.
However, the Senators being more answerable to the State Legislatures might have it's own problems.
Less direct democracy, more Republic...
Now, they are probably more tied to their biggest donners, so I dono.
And many big donners are "dark money".
It's all in the details.

The Supreme court has let the country down by not establishing minimum standards against extreme Gerrymandering.
Both parties do it.

It also led to the States' responsibilities being subsumed by Congress, with it playing favorites with federal grants back to the States.
The "States rights" arguments would hold more sway with me if they were not used when it is convenient and ignored other times.

"Playing favorites" does seem to be very big in Washington. And the biggest thing of all....( I misspoke when I said DARK money was the main problem above). is probably the giving of tax breaks and "credits" to so many people and organizations. Who pays taxes at all, who pays how much, who can take their money to off shore little places or put their headquarters in Ireland like Apple. It is all completely corrupt.
And here we are fighting over the peanuts left over.

My plan: eliminate all but the basic tax credits that everyone can use and make the Government SEND CHECKS
to all they favor for whatever reason. Let them defend their decisions in the light of day.
Tax breaks probably contributes to people being against checks to the poor because it is much more visible and quantifiable than hidden, spread out, tax credits. Just saying.... as they say.

progressives seem to not go back and check to see if their policy proposals actually worked. As an example, progressives forced the lowering of college admissions requirements in order to see more Black students enrolled. As a result a disproportionate share of these new students failed and / or dropped out because they were not prepared. Did this "progressive" policy help them? Why not recognize these students were starting out less prepared and push for focused college prep courses, perhaps at local community colleges, so these young men and women would be more likely to have a positive college experience? Maybe even volunteer to teach one of those courses?

Or course it is all complicated. I do think every student who graduates with a certain reasonable grade level in high school
(Perhaps a C average) deserves an automatic chance at the State University.
Helping slower students earlier, and like you recommended Jr college, is all good. But when all the resources are tied up in special deals for rich and connected people and businesses we are all left scrambling for the remains.

progressives seem to not go back and check to see if their policy proposals actually worked.

There are economists who say: The big tax cuts in the Reagen years did not work.
Sure everyone was working during the Trump years but one could argue many HAD TO. Even grandma went out and found work because the family was not making enough to take care of her. How many in the family need to work when the National minimum wage is what $7.50 an hour ?
ALL OF THEM. No middle class real raise in 40 years, while the super rich.... etc.

The world is certainly topsy-turvy compared to the past.

I agree, but remember, our kids have not had to practice hiding under their desks because of the nuclear cold war. I did.
Lets hope it stays that way.
Jack

Ps. When our politicians try to solve problems instead of positioning themselves for the next election we will all be better off.

[BeAChooser]

The 1920's and 1930's was a long time ago.

Yes, most of the Fabians and events that I've mentioned were from the late decades of the 19th century up to about the 1950s. That doesn’t make them irrelevant now. Not when later Democrats never acknowledged or repudiated the things I noted those Fabians said and did. The changes they instituted are still in effect today. They matter and you should understand the only reason most of them are still in place is that by the middle of the last century, Fabians already had a strong enough hold on our government to prevent their reversal. They became accepted fixtures in the landscape of American, whether they did what was promised to sell them in the first place or not … and whether the public liked them or not.

Fabians worked hard to create a mindset in the country to just accept such things as the way they are. They propagandized us constantly, with nothing less than lies and lies of omission about the supposed benefits of their changes. And while they did that, they proceeded with the next stage of their plan … which was to make us poorer and more dependent on government in every way, make us even more compliant, make us less educated, and make us more willing to accept the foundations of a police state. The hard cold truth is that item after item in Chase’s Society “X” wishlist are now in place and that affects even Democrats. Because of those changes, you now have less freedom, you’re likely poorer than you’d otherwise be, and you are less safe. And so are your children, if you have any. Theirs will be a harder future with less opportunity for building wealth because of what Fabians have enacted. And they may live in a Chinese style communist dictatorship unless the Fabians are stopped.

Now I made the claim that Fabians have made most Americans poorer than they otherwise would be. One way they’ve done that is through Social Security … one of those things they enacted during that period you dismiss as “a long time ago”. In the next post, I will prove to you that FDR and his administration lied to the public about SS. I will prove that for the vast majority, Social Security returns less than one is forced to *contribute* to it. I will also prove that you are much poorer now than you would be had you taken the money the SSA seized and stashed it in totally safe investments. In that case you’d likely end up with many times more assets than you’ll get back from SS during your life. And the money would be yours … to do with as you wish … even give it to your kid, which the SSA does not allow. In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled that SS assets are not yours. And I believe the decision to implement SS in that was deliberate on the part of FDR and his Fabian populated Brain Trust. They knew from the very beginning that they had to make the majority of Americans dependent on government if they were to successfully take over the country eventually.

Those changes the Fabians made are relevant today because they are the foundation for what came later and comes next. The second half of the 20th century was spent consolidating their gains and proceeding with the infiltration of the schools, media, police, courts, and military. And as we learned in the last election … even the election process itself. And because Fabians have now weaponized nearly every institution in the government and media against their opponents, they think they are ready for the final stage. So they are creating crises by inciting blacks to burn cities, by clearing out jails so crime skyrockets, by teaching kids that America is racist (CRT), by opening the borders to even more have-nots, and by crippling the economy with Climate Change nonsense and with lies about Covid-19. So just because Fabians made the first wave of changes more than 70 years ago … or because you didn’t understand till now the true story of how and why they were enacted, doesn’t make them irrelevant. And they are also not the end of the story.

Fabian Socialism is alive and well today. Consider this … Obama had all the hallmarks of a Fabian Socialist. It was no coincidence that his 2012 campaign video was titled “The Road We’ve Traveled”, alluding to Stuart Chase’s most important (IMO) book. It’s no coincidence George Soros, a Fabian Socialist, was and is an important Obama/Democrat Party supporter. And I’m not alone in seeing this. Here was a person who knew Obama and Fabian Socialism first hand: http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama- ... owyer.html "Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one." So just because my posts SO FAR have mostly focused on the first half century of Fabianism in the US, doesn’t mean I don’t have material so prove that Fabian Socialists are still pulling the strings of the *progressive* Democratic Party.

Never heard of Chase.

Well of course you haven’t. Fabian controlled schools didn’t want you to know the truth about Chase or Fabians. The Fabian controlled media didn’t wanted you to know that either. That’s why you never even heard of him. Why you probably hadn’t heard of Fabian Socialism either. And most of what the mainstream media published on Chase (such as his obituary … see https://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/17/nyre ... w-dea.html , for example … is filled with half truths and lies of omission so that you won’t dig further … to keep you ignorant of the mind shackles they have you in now.

Which makes me wonder, have you ever heard of Cloward and Piven? Or are you equally in the dark about them? They are another excellent example of Fabians working their magic on America in the second half of the 20th century. In fact, one of them was still alive and actively rebel rousing in 2017, when she published this ... let’s be honest ... incendiary tripe in the UNIPARTY’s propaganda outlet, TheNation: https://www.thenation.com/article/throw ... verything/ “Throw Sand in the Gears of Everything”. In that piece, Francis Piven was openly advocating sedition and in case you don’t know who this TRAITOR is, she’s one of the architects of the infamous Cloward-Piven Strategy.  She and Richard Andrew Cloward  (her deceased husband) were two Columbia University professors. Both were life-long socialists/marxists.  They wrote a very significant article in 1966 for The Nation which laid out a plan for destroying capitalism in America by swelling the welfare rolls to the point of collapsing our economy, causing chaos, and then implementing socialism (communism) by nationalizing many private institutions. Here’s an archived copy of the article:   https://web.archive.org/web/20111124045 ... 10/03/24-4.  It’s worth a read.
 
What the authors proposed was a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." They suggested that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to do so would bankrupt the system and unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level." They called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." They suggested that, intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Then, a media campaigns, carried out by friendly journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution" in the form of a guaranteed living income for all. Sound familiar? To stop the violence, local officials would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act. Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) and began to do so. His tactics closely followed the Cloward and Piven’s recommendations. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. Fortunately, the strategy failed at that time, but just because it did doesn’t mean Fabians gave up on it. Remember, Fabians are patient, if nothing else. That’s why their current logo is a turtle.

Now note that Cloward and Piven were specifically cited by Saul Alinksy. It is widely recognized that Saul Alinksy's teachings heavily influenced both Hillary Clinton and Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01152.html)   In fact, Obama linked up and worked directly with folks who were strong advocates of the Cloward-Piven strategy.  He even taught Alinsky's methods and C&P Strategy in classes. And the 1980s "voting rights movement" that Obama supported, was spearheaded by three organizations: ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE, all of whom were led by veterans of NWRO. In fact, Human SERVE was founded by Cloward and Piven. Later, ACORN and the folks who had worked on Project Vote and Human SERVE helped Obama enter politics via The New Party (which he joined in 1996) and Progressive Chicago. The New Party was an alliance of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and ACORN. And behind the DSA was and still is an organization called the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). Guess who was listed in the IPS's 1993 30th Anniversary brochure as a former IPS visiting scholar or Associate Fellow?  Frances Fox Piven.   

Friends of Obama and IPS members next helped form and lead an organization called Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS). MDS was a coalition of DSA, the CPUSA (Communist Party USA) and CCDS (Committees of Correspondence for Democracy & Socialism) plus several former leaders of SDS and the Weather Underground. MDS then spawned Progressives For Obama. In other words, an awful lot of stealth and overt communists came together to elect Obama. Communism was alive and well in the Obama camp and they worked in very Fabian ways to infiltrate the Democrats and the government.

Back in the 1990s, ACORN (founded by Wade Rathke, who was also an organizer for the NWRO in its early days) was instrumental in passage of the CRA, which it can be argued is what led to the 2008 financial crisis and recession.  And what did Obama tell ACORN during the Presidential Campaign? That he was going to have ACORN "help us shape the agenda".     And what did Obama do once elected … he packed the welfare rolls to unprecedented levels, just like the C-P Strategy recommended. His and now Biden’s policies threaten to bankrupt the government with unsustainable debt, just like the C-P Strategy recommended.  And with chaos being promoted in the streets by Soros and other communist organizations, and the Fabian controlled FBI, just like the C-P Strategy recommended, it isn't hard to connect the dots. JUST OPEN YOUR EYES.

Times were bad. A lot of good people were interested in communism.

Tut tut tut … in those years they didn’t call themselves communists. They called themselves socialists because communism had grown pretty unpopular back then. And when socialism also became unpopular, they began calling themselves progressives. That seems to have been more enduring, perhaps because of the mystic built around FDR. And anyone, whose paid attention to what I noted Stuart Chase said, should already doubt he was “good” person. And other people who wanted what the founders of the Fabian Society wanted … what Stuart Chase wrote he wanted … were NOT good people either.

Fabian George Bernard Shaw, for instance, described the Fabian methodology as using "methods of stealth, intrigue, subversion, and the deception of never calling socialism by its right name." Those aren’t the methods of *good* people. He wrote that “Under socialism … You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner”. Shaw visited the USSR in 1931 (near the peak of the Gulag), and said that he was able to step into his grave comforted "with the knowledge that the civilization of the world will be saved" and that "the new communist system is capable of leading mankind out of it's present crisis." He was not a good person.

Later he even defended the excesses of Stalin saying "a civilization cannot progress without criticism". He even tossed out the rule of law to do it, saying "(T)the most elaborate code of (law) … snip … would still have left unspecified a hundred ways in which wreckers of Communism could have sidetracked it without every having to face the essential questions: are you pulling your weight in the social boat? Are you giving more trouble than you are worth? Have you earned the privilege of living in a civilized community? That is why the Russians were forced to set up an Inquisition or Star Chamber, called at first the Cheka and now the Gay Pay Oo (Ogpu), to go into these questions and 'liquidate' persons who could not answer them satisfactorily." He called statements about the ongoing Ukrainian famine slanderous, equating what was happening to our Great Depression instead.   He wrote "I am a communist, but not a member of the Communist Party. Stalin is a first rate Fabian. I am one of the founders of Fabianism and as such very friendly to Russia." Shaw was NOT a good person.

Fabian HG Wells also visited the USSR in the 30s (just after the 1932-1933 famine caused by collectivism and in which 6-10 million people died) and met with Stalin for nearly 3 hours. Here's a transcript of that meeting: http://rationalrevolution.net/special/l ... 835_44.htm . Right off the bat he noted the similarity between what Stalin and FDR were doing. He said “Today the capitalists have to learn from you, to grasp the spirit of socialism. It seems to me that what is taking place in the United States is a profound reorganization, the creation of planned, that is, socialist, economy." When Stalin tried to say there were different aims, Wells responded, "I would like to stress the point that if a country as a whole adopts the principle of planned economy, if the government, gradually, step by step, begins consistently to apply this principle, the financial oligarchy will at last be abolished and socialism, in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, will be brought about. The effect of the ideas of Roosevelt's "New Deal" is most powerful, and in my opinion they are socialist ideas. It seems to me that instead of stressing the antagonism between the two worlds, we should, in the present circumstances, strive to establish a common tongue for all the constructive forces." From there on it's a literal love fest. HG Wells got along well with the most extreme communists, helped found the Fabian Society, and his words are literally being worshipped in the Fabian Window. He was NOT a good man.

Indeed, Wells wrote a book in 1928, which he revised in later years, on how progressive collectivism could be embedded in a society without arousing alarm or opposition. Someone who plots to do that, IMO, is NOT a good person.   The book was titled "The Open Conspiracy".   Here it is:  http://www.inlex.org/stories/wells/opencons.html .  It called for replacing the private, local or national ownership of at least credit, transport and staple production with a “responsible” world directorate (read that as dictatorship). It called for controls on population, a minimum standard of living, the subordination of personal career to the wishes of the world directorate, and a future that lies in collectivism, not individualism. Ask yourself if that isn't essentially the direction that modern Democratic Presidents and the UNIPARTY have been pushing America?   Fabianism is alive and well.

In 1932, the Fabians Sydney and Beatrice Webb visited the USSR during the height of the 1932-1933 famine. Then they published a book in 1935 titled "Soviet Communism: A New Civilization", which glorified the USSR and in which they claimed the famine didn't occur. They published another book in 1942 titled "The Truth About Soviet Russia" that equally glorified the dictatorship. It was pure propaganda, meant to spread acceptance of authoritarian communism by stealth and lies.  Malcolm Muggeridge, a correspondent for a British paper, noted that his wife's aunt was Beatrice Webb and therefore he saw first hand that the Webbs knew, at the time they wrote their books, about the Russian famine, about the Cheka (the secret police) and about people disappearing.  And they approved of it.  The Founders of the Fabian Society were NOT good people. They were evil and those who still follow them are just as evil.

Here's another member of FDR's think tank who visited the USSR in the 30s ... Roger Baldwin.    He was a stealth communist (that is the essence of Fabian Socialism) who wrote, referring to a People's Council of America that he and other socialists were trying to convene, "Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise . . . We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions."    He is on record having stated "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself...I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."   In 1934, right at the time he was a member of FDR's Brain Trust, he wrote ( http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf ) "I, too, take a class position. It is anti-capitalist and pro-revolutionary."  Not only that, he went on to say "When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies, at home and abroad."   He was not a good person, yet FDR made him a TOP advisor. Throughout his life he continued to support the programs that Fabian Socialists had long promoted in America.   And note that he was the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, which should tell you something about THAT organization and its real purpose.


Fabian Walter Lippman at one point openly advocated that FDR become a dictator. He told his readers that "The situation is critical, Franklin. You may have no alternative but to assume dictatorial powers" and "A mild species of dictatorship will help us over the roughest spots in the road ahead." He was NOT a good man.  He urged cooperation with Stalin's Soviet Union in its attempt to build a *socialist/communist* Europe and a world socialist order. In his later writings, which were naively labeled anti-communist, he took issue with the Soviet way of implementing a communist-like world. He lamented that the "revolution" should have taken place in advanced capitalist countries such as the US and England, rather than underdeveloped Russia. Implied is that then it might have succeeded. Lippman didn't give up on communism.  What he gave up on was the Soviet State to implement it. But he didn't give up on the American State, under Fabian control, to implement it.  He was not a *good* man.

They needed something. Some were too slow to see that the Soviets were Totalitarians. etc.

Spout all the rationalizations you want. They don’t counter the facts I’ve presented.