Tag Archives: Thomas DiLorenzo

Comparing Catalonia and the Confederacy—States and Nations (with notes on the Monstrosity of Moderation in Media)

SPAIN TRIED AND FAILED TO SUPPRESS A VOTE FOR SECESSION IN ITS WEALTHY NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF CATALONIA TODAY (Sunday October 1, 2017).  According to the latest tally I have seen on the BBC, 2,020,144 Catalan voters cast their ballots in favor of an Independent Republic, centered on the Mediterranean seaport of Barcelona.  These two million plus voters constituted 90.09% of the 42-43% of the eligible electorate who voted, but Spain itself had urged pro-Spanish “no” voters to stay away from the Polls, and the massive police intervention and use of force must have discouraged some….

Although during the past 42 years that “Francisco Franco is still dead,” Spain has acknowledged the right of the several nationalities (Basque, Galician, Catalan) to assert regional autonomy, Spain has declared this vote illegal and non-binding. The Central Government of Spain in Madrid has been arguing ever since the election of the pro-Independence party in September of 2015,  that Catalonia’s vote was going to be “illegal” and they threatened to, and actually did, try to suppress the vote by Police Action.  

Most of the world (which has spoken) has either come out expressly in favor or seems tacitly on the side of Catalans who want independence.  Only Madrid and the Spanish government seem strongly against it—fearful, undoubtedly, of losing prime Mediterranean beach resorts, Barcelona (the second largest city in Spain, seventh largest and “most successful” in all Europe), plus the Balearic Islands (Majorca, Menorca, Ibiza and Formentera).  In essence, Catalonia includes some of the best real estate IN ALL OF EUROPE AND THE CIRCUM MEDITERRANEAN WORLD.  This is indeed “the Spanish Riviera”.

The comparison to the Secession of the Confederate States of America is obvious, but it isn’t getting much currency in the U.S. or British Media, despite the fact that the Confederate States have made a renewed appearance in the news since April, here in New Orleans and around the USA…. and even in the consciousness of the whole world.

So, since nobody else is making the comparison (that I’ve seen so far, anyhow, I will).   In 1860, the Southern states formed (per capita) the richest part of the United States.   Catalonia had better hope that world opinion remains on its side!    Because Spain has its eyes and tax collectors all focused on this rich province, and history tells us that the rich can be laid low when they try to retain their wealth….

For the record, Catalonia was originally, and has always considered itself, a separate “Nationality” (i.e. ethnolinguistic group). During the Middle Ages, the County of Barcelona became the Capital of the “Principality of Catalonia” which later became incorporated into the Kingdom of Aragon.  Aragon, in turn, was one of the most powerful and richest states in the post-Reconquista/Crusader world of the Mediterranean.  Then Aragon, later, under the 15th century reigns of King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile, merged to form the modern Nation-State of “Spain”, leading to 500 years of almost continuous unity, although Aragon and Catalonia have several times reasserted their identities as monarchies or republics.

As James Ronald & Walter Donald Kennedy have shown in their most recent book “Punished with Poverty: the Suffering South, Prosperity to Poverty and the Continuing Struggle”  Columbia, South Carolina: Shotwell Publishing (2016), and as my dearly beloved grandmother always told me, THE SOUTH WAS THE WEALTHIEST PART OF THE UNITED STATES, “before the War” and the poorest part afterwards.   The combined cash value of the crops in any of the three pairs of Virginia and Georgia or Mississippi and Louisiana or North & South Carolina (each pair taken alone) exceeded the cash value of all the manufactured goods produced north of the Mason & Dixon-Ohio River—as of 1860.  But as of 1870, war had irreversibly altered the situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shsf–rh4PE

While neither historians or any Southerners today doubt that the people of the South overwhelmingly favored secession in 1861, the state legislatures only voted to hold popular votes as referenda/plebiscites/”propositions” in three of the thirteen states and one territory seceding (there were fifteen “slave” states, but a secession vote in the legislature in Maryland was suppressed at gunpoint and the state of Delaware never tried—West Virginia seceded from Virginia but kept its slaves and (ironically) after the war was among the most hostile toward enfranchisement of the newly freed slaves, as evidenced in several of the early major civil rights cases which emerged from that idiosyncratic Appalachian state opposite Ohio that seceded to nullify secession—oh, and Arizona was a territory constituting the southern half of what is now Arizona and New Mexico, but had then all been “New Mexico” until 1861).

In the states that held popular vote referenda, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, the votes in favor of secession were nowhere nearly as lopsided as the vote held in Catalonia today (Sunday, October 1, 2017), but it should be noted that NO NORTHERN STATE, nor the United States Federal Government, under President James Buchanan, ever questioned or attempted to quash secession in any state.  From South Carolina’s legislature’s first Ordinance of Secession on December 20, 1860, through Louisiana’s secession as the sixth state on January 26, 1861, the popular support for separation from the Union never appeared to waver or be doubtful.

SOUTHERN SECESSION PLEBESCITES

In February of 1861, Texas’ legislature voted to dissolve the state’s barely 16 year old affiliation with the Union on February 1, and a popular referendum was held on February 23, wherein the vote was 3.13:1 in favor of disunion.  

Virginia went through a similar two stage process in April and May of 1861, and the vote there (after Fort Sumter) was 3.53:1 in favor of taking the Old Dominion state into the Confederacy.  Robert E. Lee had opposed secession, but IN THOSE DAYS ONE’S CITIZENSHIP BELONGED TO THE STATE, NOT THE FEDERATION.  It would be comparable to calling us all “Citizens of the United Nations”—maybe some people WANT Global Citizenship, but so far, THANK GOD, no politically viable majority anywhere have ever voted for such a thing.

Finally, in May-June, Tennessee voted to secede, although the popular vote in that state was only 2.21:1 (for reference and comparison, NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER WON ANY ELECTION BY A 2.21-1 POPULAR VOTE (although Lyndon B. Johnson came closest in 1964 against Goldwater at 1.58 to 1 comparable to FDR in 1936 against Alf Landon at 1.61 to 1—there being more third party votes in 1936 which reduced Roosevelt’s over all majority win very slightly).

IS FREEDOM TO CHOOSE REALLY TREASON?

How many of you have been divorced?  No, it’s a serious question.  How many of you have been divorced AFTER taking a vow “Til Death do Us Part”?  I was born an “Anglo-Catholic” (i.e. Episcopalian) and my wife was born Greek Orthodox in Greece.  My parents, despite their vows, split up when I was pre-school/kindergarten and it had a major impact on my life, mostly negative.  I especially regret now, looking back on it, how my grandmother taught me to scorn my own father.  That MIGHT have been a bad thing…  Anyhow, my point was this: my wife Elena and I swore personally to each other, quite aside from the marital vows, that we would never be divorced, that we would always stick together.  And we made collateral agreements that made I think this was actually a genuine promise that we would really keep, but we didn’t.  She hired the nastiest team of divorce lawyers (and their wives) in the entire state of Texas.  She turned into a monster.  Now, I blame the system, not her, but we split up, and it wrecked me.

But, in a sense, as one of my law school professors of international law at the University of Chicago said, “the nations of the world are all in a Roman Catholic marriage with one another.”  Or are they?  Are legal unions really indissoluble?  Most people do not believe that law should stand in the way of divorce, although most marital lawyers want divorce to be as much like an expensive world war as humanly possible.  So: is divorce “normal” or is divorce “treason?”

I have to admit, I led a fairly pro-Southern, sheltered life.  Even when I lived up north and attended Harvard GSAS (A.M., Ph.D.) and the University of Chicago law (J.D.) programs, I never ever heard ANYONE ever call the Southern Confederacy TREACHEROUS or the Southern Confederates called “Traitors”—as a matter of fact, everyone I knew at Harvard kind of went out of their way to apologize for Harvard’s apparent iconography of Yankee imperialism and to point out the rather obscure stained glass windows on Memorial Hall and inscriptions dedicated to the graduates of Harvard who fought for the South—(There were 257, significantly more than you might think, including five major generals, eight brigadier generals, and fully 38% of all Harvard Graduates who died in combat 1861-1865 died in the service of the armies the CSA, including three of those brigadier generals).  

So, I confess I was shocked, bowled over in fact, while I was standing in line at the very first public debate held in New Orleans on a steaming day in July in 2015 and an exceedingly unpleasant and unattractive woman in line started talking about how Confederates were all TRAITORS.

Wall Street JOURNAL MODERATE MUGWUMP: Allen C. Guelzo

“A YANKEE VISITS CHARLOTTESVILLE, WHERE GEN. LEE IS UNDER COVER.”

Some writers take poetic license, some take journalistic license.  But let’s face it: some writers DO NOT DESERVE A LICENSE.  Allen C. Guelzo is such a writer, and yet he writes for the Wall Street Journal…. and this is a disaster.  This USED TO BE a conservative, respectable journal***.   But no decent or respectable conservative would ever write that:

“As a Yankee, I find it a little difficult to grasp why monuments to Lee are here in the first place.  He lost, and if there is one sin American culture still prefers to bury from sight, it’s losing. Worse, Lee committed treason against the flag and the Constitution.  And behind that is the ugly truth that the Confederate cause was, when all the rhetorical chaff is swept away, designed to protect Chattel slavery, the singular birth defect of the American republic.” 

This is one of those sad moments when I have to admit I’m glad I’m not Chairman Mao or Uncle Joe Stalin…. because if I were, Guelzo would be TOAST—there wouldn’t be enough left of him to fill a matchbox, I promise.

UNLIKE THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT IN CATALONIA ON SUNDAY OCTOBER 1, 2017—NO POLICE OR TROOPS TRIED TO STOP THE SOUTHERN LEGISLATURES FROM SECEDING OR THE PRO-CONFEDERATE POPULAR VOTES FROM HAPPENING

So, if secession didn’t bother the outgoing President James Buchanan, or if it bothered him he didn’t do anything to stop it.  Buchanan was a Democrat, but he was a PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRAT—a Yankee….the only Pennsylvanian ever to be elected President and the last President born in the 18th century.  

Buchanan supported his own Vice-President, John C. Breckinridge, in the election of 1860—Breckinridge being the choice of the “Southern Democrats” over Stephen Douglas of Illinois.  Breckinridge became a Confederate general—that’s right folks, the Vice-President of the United States who came in Second in the Electoral Vote and Third in the Popular Vote in 1860 became a Confederate General.  Was he a traitor too?  

I ask you (and Guelzo) somewhat rhetorically: IF the Vice-President of any country decides to take up arms agains that Country—don’t you suppose that there are some MAJOR issues at stake?  If James Buchanan believed that he had no constitutional power to stop secession, where did Abraham Lincoln get the idea that he had that power?

For the moment, I will leave that idea to you, but recommend to all my readers the words of James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, but also of Von Mises Institute Economist Thomas James DiLorenzo.

But is it significant that England would surely have allowed Scotland to opt out of the UK if Scotland had voted to do so several years ago?  Is it significant that Spain is trying very hard to look like a bully as it tries to bully Catalonia into submission, but that the world will almost certainly accept Catalonian secession in fairly short order?

***The Wall Street Journal was a feature of life in and around my maternal grandparents’ home in Highland Park in Dallas from the time I went to live there at age 6 years, two months, until my grandmother’s death in May 2001.  I respected it as perhaps the best newspaper in all of North America—I even arranged to have the WSJ delivered to Hacienda Chichén (and later the adjacent Casa Victoria) when I lived there, and made it the headquarters of my Harvard-Peabody-National Geographic-Chichén Itzá Archaeological Project 1983-1988.  Arranging such things by courier delivery from the Aeropuerto Internacional de Cancún in the 1980s was no piece of cake.

 

Confederate Monuments to the Memory of Slavery or Defense of Liberty?—the Debate Rages on in New Orleans

Last Thursday, the New Orleans City Council Voted 6-1 to take down four Confederate Monuments. [And may God-Bless Councilwoman Stacy Head, the sole dissenter, an White Uptown New Orleanian I had the privilege of meeting once at a special event at the Prytania Theatre in 2013]. The monuments in question were namely,
(1)    an equestrian statue of Confederate General Pierre-Gustav Toutant Beauregard, a lifetime French Creole who was born and died in New Orleans;
(2)  a standing statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who died in New Orleans after presiding over the founding of the first museum to the memory of the nation over which he presided for four years, as statesman and orator;
(3)   a truly monumental column crowned by a bronze standing statue of General Robert Edward Lee (forever facing North, never turning his back on the enemy); Robert E. Lee was a close kinsman of George Washington from Virginia who was and still is widely revered as one of the great heroes of all American history; and
(4)    finally, a much smaller obelisk moment to the memory of those who dies in a much-too-little-known post-war Urban Battle seven years into Reconstruction, called “the Battle of Liberty Place”, where White citizens of Louisiana overthrew the hateful occupation government imposed on them after the surrender of the Confederacy.

Polls following this vote show that more than 90% of the actively interested public oppose the removal of these statues.  But the debate rages on.  Those on the side of removal, sponsored by Mayor Mitch Landrieu, call their opponents hateful racist reactionaries who support monuments to traitors.  They accuse us of  irrational adherence to a culture of hate and to the “Memory of the Lost Cause”…

Listening, at several meetings of the New Orleans City Council, and reading online, the only wildly irrational hatred and hateful speech I hear in this debate comes from people on Mitch Landrieu-pro-Removal side of the fence.  Just this morning, a fellow named Michael Dominici posted on “Save our Circle in New Orleans on Facebook: “Slavery was an American Holocaust.” Let’s start there.  I challenged him to explain what on earth he could possibly mean by that choice of words.

You think that slaves were destined to murder or sacrifice? Well, not in the USA or anywhere in the New World, but in Africa only, where slaves were kept like cattle as food reserves for cannibalism. Many slaves who told their stories later in life said that they expected to be eaten when they arrived at the end of their slave-ship journey. That was based on African experience and tradition, nothing else. So please check and restudy your history carefully.
 
The origins of the slave trade were that first Arab and European slave traders saw the slaughter of human beings on the “dark continent” and decided that Africa’s food reserves could be better used as labor reserves than chopped up and eaten.
 
So that’s point number one: slavery may not have been a great life, but it WAS life for slaves instead of death in the cannibal stew pots or having gotten too old to be eaten and just executed.
 
Second point: Africans sold the African slaves to Anglo-American white slavers up until 1808, but never to Confederates. By the time the Confederate States of America came into being, the international slave trade had been abolished everywhere in the world EXCEPT in Africa. And many, many African-Americans in the South actively supported the Confederate States of America both as soldiers and, in the state of Louisiana, as Planters who financially backed the CSA. Like it or not, that’s just reality: there WERE African American (Mulatto, Quadroon, Octaroon) southern planters who owned slaves and supported the Confederacy “as if their life depended on it” because in a sense, it did.
 
Third point: “Confederate” is a constitutional term whose definition reflects a constitutional argument. Many of us today (who do not and would never approve of slavery) still hold to the Confederate States side of the Constitutional argument. Look at the writings of Donnie Kennedy and his brother James, of Thomas DiLorenzo, Mike Maharrey and of a not specifically “Southern” but in fact Los Angeles-based group called “The Tenth Amendment Center”.
 
Fourth point: ironically, the reason many of us do favor Jefferson Davis’ constitutionalism is that we feel that all free people lost a great deal of Freedom in the War of 1861-5 AND IN THE 150 years since, so that we Americans and our society as a whole is more slave-like now than ever before.
 
Fifth point: want statistical proof? More black people, and many more white people, are now in prison or on probation today than were ever slaves in the South, and why? Maybe you think Alex Jones is a nut, maybe you like him, but the fact remains that nobody ever called the USA a “Prison Planet” in the early 19th century. Alexander de Tocqueville called slavery America’s “peculiar institution” precisely because this was the freest land on earth—back then, but now it’s more controlled and under constant state surveillance than any dictatorship in the world, prior to 1950, ever had the technological capacity to achieve. We are living in a slave society today, and we look back with some substantial envy on the States which were free enough, and technologically self-sufficient enough, to secede in 1860-1861.
 
Sixth point: the 13th Amendment at least indirectly inspired an explosion in American prison populations. Again, look carefully at the statistics. Prior to the 13th Amendment, which established that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude could exist EXCEPT as a punishment for crime, there was almost no such thing as a “prison population” in the USA…. now the prison population of the USA is more than twice what the original TOTAL population of the United States was at the time of the first census 1790, 14 years after independence.
 
Seventh: the other cause for the explosion of American prison populations is the criminalization of so much of the country’s commercial and general economic and scientific, even food producing and consuming, activity by Federal laws and policies spread to the states. There was hardly such a thing as “Economic Regulation” on the Federal level in 1860, unless you count Andrew Jackson abolishing the Bank of the United States in the early 1830s.
 
The centralized planning of agriculture, industry, and the social-economy generally which began during the “Civil War” in the North under Abraham Lincoln’s administration, and was brutally imposed on the South during Reconstruction and afterwards, was and remains exactly what people of a “Confederate” mindset hated and feared then and still hate and fear today: the loss of economic freedom (and thus all meaningful freedom) to a tyrannical Federal government.

Of Corporations, Communism, and Capitalism—where the boundaries blur…Should We Nationalize Oil and Banking Companies and distribute the proceeds to the people? Would this constitute Communism or a the first step towards the Restoration of Non-Corporate Individual Enterprise Capitalism?

My dearly departed grandmother Helen always said that the reason the United States of America would prevail over Soviet Russia in the Cold War was that the United States had perfected Communism whereas Russia had failed: the United States perfected Communism by inventing “McDonald’s”, “Walmart” (and/or its smaller predecessors), and Red Russia had nothing remotely comparable….  McDonalds in particular seemed the epitome of Communism to my grandparents who raised me and, as a consequence, to me: everyone equal, no tradition of anything, cheap food to sustain the human body available everywhere, distributed nationally, no local or regional development allowed in the franchise. I think it was this “Worker’s Paradise Worldwide Global Homogenizing” aspect of McDonald’s (and Walmart) that my grandparents, born respectively of French-Louisiana and English-Texas backgrounds in the 1890s, found most repulsive.  McDonald’s IS repulsive and the global uniformity it (and every other trans-national trademark, from Archers-Daniel-Midland, AT&T Avon to Ford to Hilton to Mitsubishi and Nissan and Beyond) imposes is particularly oppressive.

One of the great signs of the collapse of the Soviet Union was, of course, when McDonald’s opened its first Moscow franchise on Red Square—it was as if the American Flag had been planted on Lenin’s & Stalin’s graves…. I think many felt exactly the same way in Mexico when a sacrilegious Yankee Imperialist Walmart opened beside the ancient pre-Aztec ruins of Teotihuacan, just north of Mexico City—a site whose name means “where the gods go.”  “La Reconquista de México aquí se llevó a cabo.”  In both cases, it seemed to some Americans: “We Won.”

Or did we?  1848 was the year of the publication of the Communist Manifesto.

In 1848, there was no such thing as a transnational corporation, pure and simple, much less international banks—the various members of the Rothschild Family who acted as predecessor-antecedents to international B  Even within the United States, the largest corporations were the interstate railroads, there were no such as interstate banks.

In the 1850s the railroads were growing, and with them the demand for steel and coal (and eventually…oil).   In 1860, Abraham Lincoln (lawyer for the Illinois Central Railroad, one of the largest corporations of the day) was elected President as the First (successful) Communist Revolution was about to take place as one half of the American Population, out of envy and spite, destroyed the other half over the question of slavery, which was resolved peacefully in every other country in the world except the seemingly eternally accursed island of French Haiti.

Thomas DiLorenzo and Donald Kennedy have, over the past 10 or more years, written brilliantly concerning the nascent alliance of communist ideology and corporate-government in the America of the 1860s and forward.   It was ultimately the corporate economy of the North which triumphed over the individual agrarian (Marx and other disparagingly, and inaccurately, called in “Feudal”) socio-economic organization of the South.   The Corporate Union over the Confederacy of Individuals (“Individual” or in Greek “Ho Idios“, giving us the word “idiot”—a person who is “off by himself” or wants to have it “his way”, or in the ancient Greek papyri of Hellenized Egypt “idiotiki ge” the phrase denominating “private property”—the Marxists and Corporate Statists  still use accusations of mental illness and anti-social behavior to describe advocates of individual autonomy or capitalism).

The period of 1860-1920 is often taught in our schools as the heyday of Capitalism—but was it?  No—it was the time when individuals were increasingly subjected to the power or faceless, nameless, organizations called “corporations”—except in the early days the “names” of many of these corporations were in fact individual or family names, or else they were associated with their founders/majority shareholders, who became known as the “Robber Barons”.   Was this process antithetical to communism or was this the true birth of true communism?

The largest “companies” of the past (prior to 1860) had mainly been colonial enterprises from Hudson’s Bay, Louisiana, and Massachusetts Bay, to India.  The British South Africa Company was one of the last of these, founded in the late 19th Century by Cecil Rhodes—but it was the one of the two last significant private imperialist enterprises that was contemporaneous with the development of large national corporations in North America and Europe (the other being King Leopold’s private “plantation” known as “the Belgian Congo.”)

When I think of real solutions to the modern American crisis, I think of how to restore individual private property and individual enterprise, and the enemies I see are the corporate-governmental complexes (what Dwight Eisenhower referred to as the “Military-Industrial” Complex—not quite recognizing how subversive of democracy and communistic this complex really was, and has increasingly become).

I propose that the renaissance of the individual can only come when we recognize the enemy and name the Mega-Corporate-Mega-Governmental synergy by its earliest formal name: Communism.  To destroy communism, then, we must destroy the mega-corporations and the gigantic government together.

Nationalizing the Oil and Banking Industries would be a disaster if these industries were left in the governmental hands which effectively maintain the “private corporate” fiction at the present time, but if the purpose of nationalization were to restore the wealth to the people, and the ways and means we used were the technologies and common law procedures of trust formation and fiduciary duties to achieve nationalization, these nationalizations would ultimately serve to restore both wealth and power to the people.

One year ago I wrote several pieces about the massive fraud of the Social Security Trust Fund—which was never a trust and was never funded by Social Security taxes, which were stolen and embezzled from the American People by the government’s false pretenses and fraud of creating something CALLED the Social Security Trust Fund.   Regular political “panics” are created when politicians announce that the Social Security Trust Fund is about to go bankrupt—but how can a Trust go bankrupt which was never actually funded?   The ONLY “corpus” of the Social Security Trust fund are “non-negotiable securities” which translates into English as “the hermeneutically concealed true source of the government’s inflated fiat currency.”

I propose that we should indeed nationalize the oil companies and the banks, but with the purpose of abolishing both.  The world’s dependence on oil technology and “means of production” should be radically reduced and ultimately eliminated.  No industry is more destructive of world health and the environment than the petroleum products industries.  But the wealth of the oil companies should be carefully collected, accounted for, and then invested and  administered as a true trust, operated by the government as fiduciary with FULL fiduciary liability and supervised by Congress under the debt clause of the 14th Amendment.  Likewise, the banks should be nationalized and abolished.  The real estate now held by the banks should be distributed to the people in fee simple absolute, restoring “allodial” title to all true U.S. Citizens—and yes, there needs to be a finite definition of that category, and immigration probably needs to stop, especially immigration by and through foreign investors buying up U.S. property.

Much to my pleasure and surprise I see that these ideas are not unique or individual “ho idios” to me, although I am resigned to the notion that many of my peers already think I’m crazy.  But nationalizing the banks and the oil companies is obviously, already, a concept with some support….  I am merely adding that we must not maintain them as part of the government, which is what the government is effectively doing right now—especially the banks since 2008.  What we MUST DO NOW is to nationalize the massive wealth represented and administer it as one or more fully responsible trusts to repair the damage done to the people by the lies of the past 80 years since Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected, the past 99 years since the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the past 132 years since the election of Lincoln and America’s First Communist Revolution, erected by Republicans as the supporters of Corporate-Government Plutocracy against Individual land ownership and Democracy.

See:  http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=11388172#page:showThread,11388172

 Population to US: Nationalize the Oil CompaniesDo it now!

by: Anonymous replies 126 03/10/2012 @ 12:41PM
Reply 1 – 20 of 126 first | prev | 1234567 | next | last
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

If any candidate proposed that (and won), they’d end up like the guy in Iran in the 1950s. Democratically-elected president, overthrown by the CIA to put in a puppet regime.

by: Anonymous reply 1 03/10/2012 @ 12:47PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

Do it anyway.

by: Anonymous reply 2 03/11/2012 @ 12:11PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

I don’t necessarily want to say nationalize but take away the subsidies and tax the fuck out of them.

And then nationalize higher education and health care and you’ve got a deal.

by: LuciferTheLightBringer(authenticated) reply 3 03/11/2012 @ 12:37PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

Oil Companies own Congress. You would have to first ban all Corporate Political Contributions.

by: Anonymous reply 4 03/11/2012 @ 02:38PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

The top 0.1 percent are way too powerful to let any of this happen.

I think we should nationalize the banks as well, personally.

Disolve the Fed and bring the currency back into the hands of the people instead of keeping it in the hands of private bankers.

But none of this will ever happen, so wishing for it is completely unproductive.

by: Anonymous reply 5 03/11/2012 @ 02:42PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

Last person who tried to end the Fed was JFK. We all saw what happened to him.

by: Anonymous reply 6 03/11/2012 @ 02:45PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

[R3]:

Nationalize higher education?

Think what that would accomplish for wealth distribution (over time) and class mobility.

Make every college serve a geographical area — you live here, you go to that college. That would eliminate the rich buying their way into Harvard at five million a pop, which was the going rate a couple years ago.

Then you could also make all education free starting with forgiving student loans. That would amount to confiscating a significant chunk of the banking system which now finances college education.

Think of how much it would help ordinary people and the economy of main street if we took student loan payments out of bank vaults and put it into the pockets of consumers.

by: Anonymous reply 7 03/11/2012 @ 04:40PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

That’s true…since the oil companies own our CIA, if oil companies were nationalized as they should be…our president would be slaughtered.

by: Anonymous reply 8 03/11/2012 @ 04:56PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

We should tax the hell out of them…instead the working people have to pay all the taxes and the oil companies keep all the profits. Why doesn’t our congress protect us against them?

I think every CEO of every American owned oil company should be put in prison, until things change.

by: Anonymous reply 9 03/11/2012 @ 04:59PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

We have done it here in Norway, and it works out well for us.. we get tons of money in, which some of it we spend now, but most of it we save for future generation, after the oil is gone.. it ultimately goes to the people, not to greedy oil companies, Statoil was made for the Norwegian people first and foremost. Statoil is the reason we have free higher education, free health care, paid maternity leave for a year etc… I doubt we would have had all of that without our oil, and I don’t think we would have had all that without Statoil.

by: Anonymous reply 10 03/11/2012 @ 05:05PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

The thing about oil companies is that most of them worldwide are nationalized already, so private companies are inherently at a disadvantage.

by: Anonymous reply 11 03/11/2012 @ 05:11PM