"You mean to tell me that the success of my program and my reelection hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of f…… bond traders?" He was thus forced to abandon his program before it even started, instead implementing one virtually identical to Republican proposals. He complained to his aides:
“I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans. We're Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?”


We could well call this, “The Power behind Capital Flight”, and your vote counts only on behalf of the Elite. Whether it is a Mayor, Congressman, Senator, or President it is the same- when Capitol threatens flight, which threatens the economy, and therefore the elected officials as well.
Elections are a Scam
Or do you think differently?

I don't think it is a stretch to say that one of the historic responsibilities of government is to promote the prosperity of the nation. I do not know why the un-named author of the rant 'Elections are a Scam' would think in terms of conspiracies in this matter . I think it is a given that when the business environment is heading south the electorate themselves will demand change ;and that sentiment in turn is reflected in the voting booth .

I note that the author speaks favorably of nationalizing industry . That tells me a lot about where his/her true sentiments lie. Later in the essay the author leaves no doubt that he/she is a revolutionary who does not really think that the public franchise is very important . I wonder where the author stands on liberty when the author thinks that enterprise should be a state run apparatus?

Bill Clinton indeed ran on a new Democrat /moderate platform . But when he came in his polices in my view were classic late 20th Century American socialist . Yes ;business reacted negatively to one of the largest tax increases in US history ;and so did the American electorate . As a result the 1994 election resulted in the Gingrich led Republicans gaining the majority . I would note that Clinton's rant above may have been his private sentiment ,but he rode the economic prosperity to reelection in 1996 ,and boasts of the strength of the economy during his reign to this day.

I don't really see why financial concerns should not be a part of the decision making process of a President or a legislator. Part of the job of our legislators is to promote economic growth. If the finance world (the "street") are all of the opinion that a particular form of legislation is a bad thing, don't you think that a President should listen to them before making a decision? And the fact that a particular move is bad for the economy is true whether the person making that move is Democrat or Republican means that the "street" will react the same to either one. So in that sense, yes, it is true that Dems and Reps will be pressured the same way by the "street". And that is not necessarily a bad thing. Such influence keeps people from making really stupid mistakes with really huge consequences.

But I do not see the two parties as the same, or elections as "a sham".

First of all, someone with enough character and presence of mind can act contrary to pressure, if they so desire. Reagan did it. JFK did it. And FDR did it as well. So it is indeed possible to not be influenced by the "street" or any other lobbying group, and it has been done before.

Seond, there are lots of issues where the two parties depart from each other fundamentally, and regardless of pressure from the street those positions will not change. Abortion issues, welfare reform, gun control, environmental issues, gay marriage, etc. are all issues where the two parties are at opposite ends of the issue, and no amount of outside influence is going to change that. If those issues matter to you, then which party you vote for does make a difference, in my opinion.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't think it is a stretch to say that one of the historic responsiblities of government is to promote the prosperity of the nation. I do not know why the un-named author of the rant 'Elections are a Scam' would think in terms of conspiracies in this matter . I think it is a given that when the business environment is heading south the electorate themselves will demand change ;and that sentiment in turn is reflected in the voting booth .

I note that the author speaks favorably of nationalizing industry . That tells me alot about where his/her true sentiments lie. Later in the essay the author leaves no doubt that he/she is a revolutionary who does not really think that the public franchise is very important . I wonder where the author stands on liberty when the author thinks that enterprise should be a state run apparatus?

Bill Clinton indeed ran on a new Democrat /moderate platform . But when he came in his polices in my view were classic late 20th Century American socialist . Yes ;business reacted negatively to one of the largest tax increases in US history ;and so did the American electorate . As a result the 1994 election resulted in the Gingrich led Republicans gaining the majority . I would note that Clinton's rant above may have been his private sentiment ,but he rode the economic prosperity to reelection in 1996 ,and boasts of the strength of the economy during his reign to this day.

---

You and I interpreted the authors “Rant” at almost polar opposites. I don't believe government should promote prosperity; I believe the government should provide an environment where free trade can take place. I don't understand why you would rule out a conspiracy between “Capital” and Politicians, given the abundance of historical events of such practices.

I don't think the author denies that votes count; only that “Capital” can manipulate votes through the flood of capital into, or out of a geographic area.

I didn't understand the author to position themselves against the public franchise, only against government run public franchise. The rules governing major government decisions require public involvement during the deliberative process. Unfortunately public participation is rarely welcomed.

I completely missed the part of the rant about nationalizing industry, could you direct me to where you drew that inference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I don't really see why financial concerns should not be a part of the decision making process of a President or a legislator. Part of the job of our legislators is to promote economic growth. If the finance world (the "street") are all of the opinion that a particular form of legislation is a bad thing, don't you think that a President should listen to them before making a decision? And the fact that a particular move is bad for the economy is true whether the person making that move is Democrat or Republican means that the "street" will react the same to either one. So in that sense, yes, it is true that Dems and Reps will be pressured the same way by the "street". And that is not necessarily a bad thing. Such influence keeps people from making realy stupid mistakes with really huge consequences.

But I do not see the two parties as the same, or elections as "a sham".

First of all, someone with enough character and presence of mind can act contrary to pressure, if they so desire. Reagan did it. JFK did it. And FDR did it as well. So it is indeed possible to not be influenced by the "street" or any other lobbying group, and it has been done before.

Seond, there are lots of issues where the two parties depart from each other fundamentally, and regardless of pressure from the street those positions will not change. Abortion issues, welfare reform, gun control, environmental issues, gay marriage, etc. are all issues where the two parties are at opposite ends of the issue, and no amount of outside influence is going to change that. If those issues matter to you, then which party you vote for does make a difference, in my opinion.

Elliot

---

I think the author of the “Rant” is complaining about the very positions you support i.e. government interference… in what the author sees as an individuals right to free trade; unencumbered by government interference.

Quote:

---

I don't believe government should promote prosperity; I believe the government should provide an environment where free trade can take place.

---

In theory you are correct . But business and capital will migrate to the environment that is most business friendly . I saw NYC lose business for years because NJ made for a better business environment . To keep jobs the city elected leadership had to change and become more business friendly . The same has happened on an international scale. The multi-nationals have no qualm pulling stakes and moving on.

The author does indirectly endorse nationalization as a remedy . Look just below the quote you provided. From the author's perspective it makes perfect sense .

Quote:

---

In theory the government might be able to combat this by nationalizing industry but neither the Democrats nor Republicans (or most prominent third parties) are willing to do this. Even if they were, the Supreme Court would strike it down. If some way were found to get around this then the CIA and/or Pentagon would overthrow the government in a coup (or through less dramatic means).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

In theory you are correct . But business and capital will migrate to the environment that is most business friendly . I saw NYC lose buisness for years because NJ made for a better business environment . To keep jobs the city elected leadership had to change and become more business friendly . The same has happened on an international scale. The multi-nationals have no qualm pulling stakes and moving on.

The author does indirectly endorse nationalization as a remedy . Look just below the quote you provided. From the author's perspective it makes perfect sense .

---

Given that he pokes fun at the left throughout the rant, I don’t think so…And given that the article is published along with Anarchist articles and links… I think the author is an Anarchist, or at least a Libertarian.

I believe that in his rant when he is talking about business and capital he had more in mind the connection between the Federal Reserve, Wall Street [Banking] and the trilateral commission; the financiers of war who have often financed both sides in a war…for instance the Morgan group financing both Germany and Russia during ww1.