<Variable vs. Fixed Costs of Driving The Oil Drum OPEC Declines and the World Plateau>

123 comments on Friedman calls for a Third Party

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

expat on May 3, 2006 - 2:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
So the right to assemble to petition for redress ensures that the wealthy remain powerful? Somehow, I missed that in reading the coverage of the various demonstrations over the last couple of months for those who feel the current politics concerning immigration is not something they can simply ignore.

What I will grant you is that most Americans (excepting those recent and illegal immigrants) are far too lazy to care about anything but their comforts, which are draining away anyways.

Personally, I find this money=power equation a touch too simplistic in any political system which allows for the change of government without revolution and blood in the streets. Unless you think FDR and his various approaches to government during the Great Depression were just another example of the rich retaining power (I may add, the rich of the time would not have agreed with you - it has taken them generations to roll back Roosevelt's reforms).  

But as we all know, the most dominant voting block in American is the non-voter. I am not sure what that has to do with 1st Amendment rights, but it is certainly a sign of the sort of decay that anyone looking at democracy as a political system considers to be one of the incurable weaknesses which eventually destroys democracy. The founders of America read a lot of history, and the fact that the system they constructed has lasted a couple of centuries is proof that they understood much about democracy's fatal flaws - no one else at the time expected more than a few years.

But America has always been about the rich having power - didn't you learn that in history in school? Maybe coming from Virginia, these things are handled more honestly than other places - none of the Virginian Founding Fathers were of modest means - and their taste in plantations remains heads and shoulders above everyone else's, in my humble opinion.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wkwillis on May 3, 2006 - 8:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
FDR was a reformer, not a revolutionary. He did not want to get rid of the rich, or inheirited wealth like his, he wanted to keep them from self destructing completely.
In 1932 it was Roosevelt or Huey Long. Long would have stripped the rich of their wealth without blinking an eye.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on May 3, 2006 - 10:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Certainly he was a reformer, somewhat like another Roosevelt.

The point I was trying to make was that essentially in the eyes of his rich social contemporaries, FDR was a class traitor who sold them out, and not someone acting in their interests, short or long term.

Of course, we can see how it played out - which is why that comment about taking generations to roll back many of FDR's reforms is there. The rich didn't suddenly develop a social conscience following WWII - they faced Stalin, and then their nightmare of 'Communism' - only after that threat seemed safely over could they get back to work doing the one thing the rich can always be counted on - increasing their wealth without concern for any human being but themselves.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wkwillis on May 3, 2006 - 11:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yeah, you are right. The same thing happened in Britain after the Napoleonic wars. The welfare benefits were cut and the "corn laws" were increased as a sort of de facto tax increase. They weren't worried about Nappy landing and the peasants revolting.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlphaMaleProphetOfDoom on May 3, 2006 - 1:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Exactly!

There were two factions (oversimplified) of the rich back then. The FDR faction and the "Dupont" faction for lack of a better term.

The Dupont faction wanted no reforms. Had they gained power (they attempted a coup in '34) there would have been no reforms. The country would have seen a meltdown and probably turned to communism once the dust had settled.

The FDR faction was the smarter faction in my opinion. They knew that if they didn't help out the poor people a little bit (with the New Deal) the whole thing would go down the tube.

Imagine two brothers who co-own a plantation. FDR was the brother who figured we better give the slaves better working conditions or there going to burn down the plantation and hang the master's family. Smart move, in my opinion.

Best,

Matt

P.S.

For those of you wondering about the attempted coup, yes it really did happend. History channel even did a documentary about it and their not exactly known for being a radicalist media outlet. For more info, read the original House documents confirming the whole damn thing:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/other/HUAC1.pdf

http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/other/HUAC2.pdf

http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/other/HUAC3.pdf

A good summary here:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/amcoup.html

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlphaMaleProphetOfDoom on May 3, 2006 - 1:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"So the right to assemble to petition for redress ensures that the wealthy remain powerful. . ."

Yes.

Let's say the TOD editors organize an assembly to redress grievances surrounding our oil problmes.. Unless it is supported by the $$$ through the mass media it will not have any real effect.

Take a look at the letter they crafted. Guess what? Unless the mainstream media (NBC owned be General Electric, for instance) picks it up, some dumbass yelling "its the gays fault for high gas prices! God will bring down the prices once we get the gays!" over on Fox News will have 1000 times more influence then TOD, LATOC, FTW, combined etc.

Which "prophet-of-doom" has more influence in this country: yours truly or Tim Lahaye (sp?), the author of the "Left Behind" series and why?

It comes down to $$$.

Best,

Matt

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

123 comments on Friedman calls for a Third Party

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version