Just a thought

ThatGuy113 said:

One thing they did not foresee was the rise of Industrial revolution which forever changed everything we do in this country on a daily bases. The biggest companies they ever imagined also did not have mutli-billion dollar years. Business was extremely slow, the big companies back then were few and far apart most capitalistic ventures were small and had only one store.

Click to expand...

["If ye love wealth better than liberty, the
Tranquility of servitude better than the
Animating contest of freedom, go home from
us in peace. We ask not your counsels or
arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feed you. May your chains set lightly upon
you, and may posterity forget that ye were
our countrymen."
~ Samuel Adams, speech at the
Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776

Click to expand...

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse,
intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over
governments by controlling money and its issuance." - President James Madison

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

Everything had to be governed locally because the Federal government wouldn't be able to efficiently govern over that distance. Strong local government grew and locals actually paid attention because there was actually some accountability down the street opposed to states away. So the blanket application of a conservative view of the bill of rights dismantlement a majority of the Federal Government Maybe if people actually cared in non presidential election years we wouldn't have this problem.

Click to expand...

sync0s said:

What about East India Company?



[/SIZE][/FONT]

Me thinks you wrong.



Actually the emphasis on states rights is because state and local governments are more in touch with it's people than the federal government is (If the current times aren't proof of this, I don't know what is).


'A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have.'
Thomas Jefferson (1743 -1826)

Click to expand...

fenderburn84 said:

Syncos is right although I will add I belive the powers were given to the states more because you could reach out and touch them, so they would think twice about shafting us pike the federal government does.

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

What about the East Indian trading company? They were not even close to monetary levels we are at today besides like i said above big companies were few and far apart i didn't say they were non existent. Also they have nothing to do with the industrial revolution and development of increasing international trade and mass production. Building profits faster then anyone has ever seen before and conditioned to this very day.

oh and im glad you read the whole post where i said like oh theres no accountability between governemtn officials and voters.

"So what should you do? Build a relationship with your local reps and government and hold them accountable for what your "Vision" of America is. So maybe one day if your reps move up through the political system you might actually still have a lane of communication cause youve been a loyal constituent from the beginning. The Nation is to big to try to sway the Country towards policies built on social issues that just complicate the system and distract voters away from the real clockwork that gets things done. Most people couldn't even name their State rep but want to be able to magically change the whole system in their perfect vision for the country. What it comes down to is your not the only important person in the country or the world, so you probably dont know whats best for the country because hey you've only walked in your shoes or maybe even if you got to experience another way of life that's still not a whole lot of experience. Experience helps build understanding not rose colored glasses set on fixing the world. Most people couldn't tell you who the President was during the Great Depression let alone know any more info then just names for pre-Reagan presidents if they can even get the names. How the hell are supporters supposed to take on the Man when they have no idea what it took to get us out of the ruts America has experienced. You cant expect your Presidential candidate to do it all can you? not if you actually apply the frame work of the constitution"

Oh and you couldn't even mitigate my actual argument about the bullshit word work voters that cant get up off their asses unless some magical beacon of change runs for president and then disappoints them again when elected and never follows through. The legislature is the real power of the land how hard is it to understand?



Clause 1: Executive power

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows[SUP][1][/SUP]
​

Clause one is a "vesting clause," similar to other clauses in Articles One and Three, but it vests the power to execute the instructions of Congress, which has the exclusive power to make laws; "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Click to expand...

The Dutch East India Company (Dutch: Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie, VOC, "United East India Company") was a chartered company established in 1602, when the States-General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out colonial activities in Asia. It was the second multinational corporation in the world (the British East India Company was founded two years earlier) and the first company to issue stock.[SUP][2][/SUP] It was also arguably the first megacorporation, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts,[SUP][3][/SUP] negotiate treaties, coin money, and establish colonies

Click to expand...

sync0s said:

Me thinks you wrong.



Actually the emphasis on states rights is because state and local governments are more in touch with it's people than the federal government is (If the current times aren't proof of this, I don't know what is).


'A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have.'
Thomas Jefferson (1743 -1826)

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

I rarely venture into here because politics is just a bad subject to discuss without anyone getting inflamed. (This viewpoint can be applied to the whole political spectrum Republican, Democrat, Independent etc... )

Here it goes.... If you want to stick to the frame work of the constitution the presidency doesn't mean jack compared to the the Legislative Branch. As our country grew the social impact and social importance of the President evolved. The Power of the President has also grown but it is still not enough to overpower the legislature (remember checks and balances children?). The whole idea was so we don't elect in a Person that all of sudden changes the government and declares himself the lone ruler of the country. So when I see everyone come out of the woodwork every 3-4 years for a presidential candidate it drives me nuts. Why even come out to pick a president to "change" or " bring back the old America" (Idk what the definition of the old America is they've been saying that since before the old America actually changed). You cant have change in the federal government unless you can reform the legislature to a majority of people who can actually compromise just like it was meant to be. The over generalizations of the good ol days kills any actual remembrance of how it REALLY was. I mean since the 50's has America been the most absolute perfect place in the world for every single citizen... no. Ah ha so I get it they want to shift America back to when they had it good and just neglect everyone else cause hey who cares if we win were the majority and majority outweighs the rights and lives of the less fortunate. How do you think a majority of those congressman got to D.C. in the first place? Local government and stepping up the chain of command (while all those devoted presidential voters weren't interested enough to go voice their opinion). Where were all these Ron Paul supporters when they could of been working on changing legislature. Barely anyone votes for their local or state elections with exception of maybe a election choosing the Governor. If you really want to change the world and reform the federal government then you need to do the work not just scream at someone for telling you that your presidential candidate is an idiot. Its a waste of time to even vote for president if your not voting for local and state officials. There is no longer any accountability between the citizens and the top of the chain in the Nation's Capitol.

So what should you do? Build a relationship with your local reps and government and hold them accountable for what your "Vision" of America is. So maybe one day if your reps move up through the political system you might actually still have a lane of communication cause youve been a loyal constituent from the beginning. The Nation is to big to try to sway the Country towards policies built on social issues that just complicate the system and distract voters away from the real clockwork that gets things done. Most people couldn't even name their State rep but want to be able to magically change the whole system in their perfect vision for the country. What it comes down to is your not the only important person in the country or the world, so you probably dont know whats best for the country because hey you've only walked in your shoes or maybe even if you got to experience another way of life that's still not a whole lot of experience. Experience helps build understanding not rose colored glasses set on fixing the world. Most people couldn't tell you who the President was during the Great Depression let alone know any more info then just names for pre-Reagan presidents if they can even get the names. How the hell are supporters supposed to take on the Man when they have no idea what it took to get us out of the ruts America has experienced. You cant expect your Presidential candidate to do it all can you? not if you actually apply the frame work of the constitution.

P..S. For the voters that want a strict enforcement of their interpretation of the constitution (remember All those crazy guys wrote it to be objective so it could be applied to future events and so that application could be changed when it needs to be). One thing they did not foresee was the rise of Industrial revolution which forever changed everything we do in this country on a daily bases. The biggest companies they ever imagined also did not have mutli-billion dollar years. Business was extremely slow, the big companies back then were few and far apart most capitalistic ventures were small and had only one store. Everything had to be governed locally because the Federal government wouldn't be able to efficiently govern over that distance. Strong local government grew and locals actually paid attention because there was actually some accountability down the street opposed to states away. So the blanket application of a conservative view of the bill of rights dismantlement a majority of the Federal Government Maybe if people actually cared in non presidential election years we wouldn't have this problem.

Take it or leave it just another viewpoint.

Edit: Forgot to mention that it only works if it could happen at one time on a widespread level. Oh and I'm a Democrat to solve any possible confusion.

Click to expand...

JamCE said:

Some random quotes from other people, fragmented sentences, and that is the effort you put forth on your side?

*My sweet, innocent 1st Grade teacher voice* "Thanks for sharing SyncOs, now sit down so the adults can talk."

Click to expand...

sync0s said:

If I quoted that part of your post that would mean I was arguing against it. I only quoted the pertinent parts.

Apparently, in your mind, to disagree with parts of your post means to disagree with the entirety of your post.



The East India Company was around before the founding fathers established this nation, and through the quotes I proved that they did anticipate the power of corporations. We just haven't listened to them. The funny thing is the big government proponents failure to realize that it is big government that is the perfect environment to allow greater power for these corporations, but no, go on.

Click to expand...

JamCE said:

Some random quotes from other people, fragmented sentences, and that is the effort you put forth on your side?

*My sweet, innocent 1st Grade teacher voice* "Thanks for sharing SyncOs, now sit down so the adults can talk."

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

I don't need a history lesson on the East Indian trading company, besides what do they have to do with big business in America. My point was is that trading companies and those other far and few apart, huge companies were not doing large-scale instantaneous trade plus they were importing and exporting not making a majority of their own product. They did not operate under the rule of America because they weren't based here unless some regulation on importing and exporting were to be changed and then wed only have those policies. Oh and by the way the East Indian Trading company disbanded before the Industrial Revolution ended so that really showed how well they did when it got close to the end of the century (they got regulated to because guess what they got out of hand too and once the place was cleaned up it was on its way down). The founding fathers WOULD NOT be able to fathom even the idea of multi-billion dollar profits. At the height of the East India Trading company they were making 2 million guilders (rough estimation of worth today 863,801.72 EUR = 1,120,667.60 USD) Hot damn those are some HUUUUUGE profits. They couldn't mass produce at the rates that companies can today let alone The technical part of the Industrial revolution didn't reach us until the early 1900's. The increasing speed of increasing profit margins has never been seen before its a race to the top and no one can seem to find that glass ceiling yet. You realize that the lack of government regulation or any at all in the first place helped foster a environment for Robber Barons to take control and monopolize with little resistance. That really worked huh? If all of these fringe voters would have been out voting and not sitting on their hands for legislative elections maybe business wouldn't be where it is today.

Click to expand...

Today’s history textbooks typically depict the Industrial Revolution in the United States as a period dominated by “robber barons”—unscrupulous businessmen who earned vast fortunes on the backs of weary workers and naïve consumers.


Challenging this view is Dr. Burt Folsom (pictured), a professor of history at Hillsdale College in Michigan. Too often, he says, textbooks fail to distinguish between what he calls “economic entrepreneurs”—self-made industrialists whose hard work and ingenuity helped make the United States the superpower it is today—and “political entrepreneurs”—well-connected businessmen who used their political clout to extract money and privileges from taxpayers while contributing little to economic progress.


History shows that economic entrepreneurs routinely outperform their government-subsidized counterparts, Dr. Folsom says, but historical examples of this principle are frequently excluded from today’s textbooks.


The question of free enterprise versus government intervention is not a new one. “If we go back … 160 years ago, to the 1840s, we see in the United States a tremendous debate on whether or not we should use the government in the area of developing our economy,” Folsom told students last month at Accuracy in Academia’s annual Conservative University conference.
In those days, the exciting new technology—“the high-tech Internet of the age”—was the steamship, an invention which had dramatically shortened the time needed to travel between Europe and America, Folsom said. “Just as the Internet brings the world closer together and allows you to get in touch with people all over the world and do transactions more quickly, the steamship did the same thing.”
In the early 19th century, however, the U.S. lagged well behind European nations in its deployment of the steamship and other technologies, Folsom said. Americans were split on how best to catch up with European industry. Many argued for the free-market approach: “Turn entrepreneurs loose to see what they can invent and create,” as Folsom summarized it.


Others believed that government support was necessary to bridge the technology gap between America and Europe: “How do we expect our entrepreneurs to catch up with them if they’re way ahead of us? What we need to do is give a subsidy or some kind of government support to get our entrepreneur up, and then let him compete, with that subsidy!”
In the debate over steamships, Folsom noted, the latter argument won the day. In 1847 a man named Edward Collins persuaded Congress to grant him more than three million dollars to build a fleet of steamships, plus hundreds of thousand of dollars a year in subsidies.
As his steamship service grew, Collins discovered that his costs were greater, and revenues less, than expected. But rather than streamlining his business, the well-connected businessman persuaded Congress to grant him a larger subsidy, Folsom said. Each year, Collins would ask for just a bit more money to help him get on his feet, and Congress would comply.


Then, in 1855, an entrepreneur named Cornelius Vanderbilt went to Congress with an offer to run a steamship line for half of what Collins was receiving in subsidies, Folsom said. Having already so invested so much in Collins, and skeptical of Vanderbilt’s ability to do the job, Congress declined his offer.
Vanderbilt, nonetheless, decided to challenge Collins even without a subsidy and began operating his own steamship service. Since the cost of each voyage was largely fixed, Vanderbilt reasoned that he could offer lower fares if he made full use of his ships’ capacity. Thanks to this and other innovative strategies, Folsom noted, Vanderbilt’s service surpassed Collins’ in popularity and soon began to turn a profit.


Collins, rather than cut costs, told Congress that he would need an even larger subsidy—because he was losing business to Vanderbilt! Amazingly, Congress complied, Folsom reported. But even with the increased subsidies—including $1 million to build a new ship—Collins’ line faltered. One of his ships crashed into an iceberg, killing 450 passengers, and another one set sail and never returned.

After spending several years and millions of tax dollars on Collins, Congress eventually voted to cut the subsidies, Folsom said, and Collins’ line soon went bankrupt while Vanderbilt’s prospered.


Unfortunately, Folsom pointed out, Congress did not learn much from the ordeal. Not long after Collins went out of business, Congress began awarding subsidies to businessmen promising to build a transcontinental railroad. Four transcontinental railroad companies took dozens of millions of taxpayer dollars only to produce substandard lines, engage in rampant corruption, and, eventually, go bankrupt.


James J. Hill, in contrast, received no such subsidy yet built a railroad stretching from St. Paul to Seattle, Folsom said. The line operated more efficiently than its subsidized counterparts and never went bankrupt.


“The combination of the railroads plus the steamships did dent the thick skulls of some of the people pondering this question,” Folsom noted. “And what we have in the late 1800s in the United States is a period of relatively limited government, hardly any examples of federal subsidies—the occasional protective tariff here or there, but you don’t see any direct federal subsidies.”


The result, Folsom pointed out, was a period of economic expansion in the late 1800s that transformed the United States into an industrial powerhouse and raised Americans’ standard of living immeasurably.


And, contrary to what history textbooks may say, the entrepreneurs who made that happen—such as Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, and Herbert Dow—were not “robber barons,” Folsom insisted. “The real robber barons were the ones trying to use politics and get a subsidy to be successful

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

So to sum it up your basically telling me that no regulation on corporations is the best way to go with no government interference.

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

So the guys at Enron would of never have done those things in a environmental of no accountability.

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

Wow you must really believe in extreme monopolies and unfair business practices don't you?

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

Its like saying you'd expect society to run naturally with no police no government no nothing and letting criminals do as they please? Yup makes a lot of sense when you apply it to business.

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

Reaganomics leaves nothing but cold yellow trickle of piss from the tippy top of that ivory tower we call the 1 percent these days(just to generalize). Can you imagine how much more damage would of been done by Enron if they werent being watched. You some how think the magic accountability fairy is going to poof up and save the day?

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

Good luck with that slugger.... money is corrupt, mutli billion dollar profits don't just go in the bank they rob both YOU and I of our voting voice because there the one feeding the hogs at the table.

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

How the hell could you play football if there was no rules? let alone anything else that works within a system. Self Governance is not to be trusted.

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

The only reason those a lot of business men don't hop into politics is because their to dirty for it. Yea I really trust your buddies.

Click to expand...

Clearly, these Enron guys were in it for themselves and were using their position to full advantage. They were fraudulently overstating the assets of the company to inflate their stock price. But how did they ever get into a situation where they could manipulate energy prices at will? How were they able to stick their greedy hands into the pockets of California taxpayers?


Let's do a little thinking. Any seller can set prices wherever he wishes. The guy at 7-11 can ask $1,000 for a loaf of bread. If that happens, I'll just go to the grocery store. That $1,000 was only the asking price, not the sale price. Competition between 7-11 and the grocery store will force 7-11 to lower its price or else go out of business. The same is true of the labor market. I could announce that I wish to be the chairman of Sony Records and receive $1,000,000 in salary, but the owners of Sony could dismiss me as delusional.


In a free market, sale prices are set by the interaction of supply and demand. The only way to manipulate this basic law of the universe is to threaten physical violence, and the only people who can legally initiate physical violence are government agents. Any time we hear of some corporation manipulating the market, or gouging consumers, it should raise a red flag signaling us to look for the strangling hands of government.
Energy production and trading in California is the furthest thing from a free market.


First, the government grants a monopoly to a single energy provider for each geographic area, eliminating competition.
Second, there have been government price controls on energy since the beginning of the industry. Freely fluctuating prices are the single most important aspect of a market, because prices send vital information to both producers and consumers. Artificially controlled prices send false information, and this creates a harmful misallocation of resources.


Third, the government prevents an increase in the supply of electricity by blocking the construction of new generators. Nuclear power is a clean, cheap and viable method of electricity production, yet there has not been a new plant built in California in over 30 years. This shifts the burden onto natural gas, which is more expensive and more dangerous. We are left with no alternative but to import electricity to meet the ever-increasing demand.
Now, supposedly to remedy this situation, the California government under Pete Wilson imposed yet another intervention, calling it 'Deregulation.' It's hard to imagine a more misleading term. They allowed the wholesale price of energy to fluctuate, while continuing to fix the price at the retail level.

Anyone with an understanding of economics could have (and did) predict the outcome: Massive shortages of electricity, and a taxpayer rip-off. Unable to increase supply, unable to lower demand by raising prices, the local utilities were stuck. This made them eligible for taxpayer bailouts, always more fun than earning a living on the market. Enron, being both a supplier of natural gas and an energy broker, and enjoying government monopoly contracts in these areas, was poised to exploit the situation.


The government then lifted the retail price control in one small area, San Diego and South Orange County . This meant that the power supply there was suddenly opened up to the desperate demand of the entire Western United States . Surprise! The price of electricity skyrocketed. That one little area had to absorb the price shock generated by an entire region. Blackouts and brownouts would follow, because if you don't allow the market to work, resources must be rationed by politicians, i.e., force. This was enough to frighten the people into losing what little common sense they might have had left in the matter.


So, here came the government again. With willing accomplices in the ignorant media, new California Governor Gray Davis was able to pin the blame on, of all things, the free market! (Redefining words is a very useful tool.) Next came the final dagger, with Davis and the legislature entering into long-term energy contracts at high prices, and borrowing huge amounts of money. The taxpayers are on the hook for all this, of course. This then led to the political demise of Davis , but the damage was done.


Mission accomplished. The California Government now has license to extract untold billions of dollars from its productive workers indefinitely. As if that weren't bad enough, voters replaced Davis with Arnold Schwarzenegger, who promptly passed a bond measure and refinanced the debt even further. Do not be misled into thinking that government was harmed by the whole fiasco. It has benefited greatly, despite the change of figureheads.
The Enron executives were liars. They were fueled by the reckless credit expansion of the Fed. But the market discovered this and punished them. For all their ill-gotten gains, Enron went bankrupt, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. It was the market that rid us of Enron, despite government regulators.


But who is going to punish the government officials? After all this, amazingly, we hear cries for greater government control. Wake up, people. Government regulatory agencies are not operating in the interest of consumers. They are the very means by which companies like Enron are able to insulate themselves against competition, and manipulate the market. The Enron tapes reveal this, as Enron had an entire department devoted to government affairs:
"This is the time of year when government affairs has to prove how valuable it is to [Enron execs] Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling," said an Enron trader, according to the tape transcript.


So government will sit back, watch the show, rake in tax dollars and bribes, and occasionally kill off a sacrificial lamb. When the public gets close to understanding the truth, politicians are happy to be characterized as inept. That way, they can appear benevolent while continuing the process that characterizes all government activity: Finding excuses to forcibly take money away from people. For those of you who still believe that government is merely incompetent, I urge you to instead replace that with the understanding that government is evil.

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

Just a little teaser for now.... Why the hell would I want to try to take Thomas jeffersons intent on the constitution when he didn't even right it? He was just one of the founding fathers and his opinions did not reflect the whole.

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

And p.s. refer to the part you did agree within my first post and realize that is my answer to the problem you don't have to worry about a corrupt government when we actually did our job to elect the right people and not just the talking head of the nationevery four years and has no real power dealt from the constitution.

Click to expand...

ThatGuy113 said:

Oh and that's a nice editorial totally unbiased

Click to expand...