There's an old saying

i sometimes wonder if folks understand the definitions of the terms they throw around. you could say that alliance with the state is the core of capitalism, but you would be dead wrong. the heart of capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. socialism, on the other hand, is based on state control. you remember what the state is, don't you. they're the folks who make the rules. even in the best of situations, private citizens have only minimal control over the functionaries of the state. a few may be voted out of office after a certain amount of time, but the vast majority are hired or appointed without our having any say-so in the matter and protected by a series of contracts and agreement that those of us who foot their bills were never even consulted on. socialism takes the last refuge of the private citizen, the marketplace, and places it squarely in their hands. manipulations that they would be in charge of stamping out are routinely ignored and capitalized upon under that odious system. the corruption that is systemic within any unaccountable bureaucracy is magnified by the melding of political and economic power. the give and take between privately owned economic powers and public sector power brokers that is a limiting factor for both is almost entirely done away with, replaced simply by the take of bureaucrats siphoning off wealth at their own discretion. the corruption that you rail against is not merely an aberration or a perversion of the system, it is a cornerstone.

 

You continue to talk over my posts - this is irritating. Your now claim - an alliance with state is not the core of capitalism. This a different claim than what was being discussed which was - that some of the problems of capitalism come from an unholy alliance between the state and Gov't and the other problems with capitalism I mentioned. This is called "moving the goalposts".

Rather than address what I was discussing you go on about the obvious differences in ownership between socialism/capitalism as if you are speaking to a kindergarten student.

I might as well be talking to the wall. There is no point in my responding to your posts if you do nothing but talk over and fail to address my comments (which were in relation to your comments).

Then after your condescending silliness - you come up with this gem "even in the best of situations, private citizens have only minimal control over the functionaries of the state" - a claim that shows you have very little understanding with respect to the re massive amount of influence and control that corporate interests exert over our political system, bureaucracy and public opinion.

This you get right "but the vast majority are hired or appointed without our having any say-so in the matter and protected by a series of contracts and agreement that those of us who foot their bills were never even consulted on" It is the political class that hires these bureaucrats - a political class that is mostly "selected" not elected.

One rarely gets elected without the backing of big money - and big money does not give money to folks who do not share their interests. These folks then put people in power on the basis of those interests. The Bureaucrats at the top of the food chain are then influenced in many ways - seat on a board of directors- lobbyist positions and via more subtle and intricate forms of coercion such as public pressure which is manipulated through the mass media.

It is a pay to play system. If you play -you get paid - and everyone knows it. It is not like the folks in power even deny the influence of big money in Washington - in fact they rail about it all the time. .. It is not like this is some big secret that that I discovered upon waking up this morning.

Do you think Hillary gets paid 250K for a 15 minute speech at a wall street banker luncheon on the basis of her good looks and charming personality ? Did ya .. did ya ? Of course not - It is for a job well done. If you play - you get paid - and everyone knows it. It is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed.

Every time some regulation or tax law gets made the Oligopolies are sitting at the table - and perhaps they have a right to be there. The problem is that the bureaucrat who is supposed to be protecting the interests of the little guy is either in the pocket of, or under the influence of the Oligopoly. It is not like the Oligopoly wins every table but, over time, table after table, the rules of the game get skewed in favor of the Oligopoly.

We hear calls regularly from lone voices on certain issues - drug price fixing - insider trading in congress (which used to be legal and but still is barely enforced). Everyone points to that lone voice and says "Look Look we have freedom of speech in this country - what a good system we have" - that lone voice is then quickly drowned out by the cacophony on the take.

Would you be the one to shoot the goose that lays the golden eggs ? - Would you be the one running against a herd of stampeding bulls? I can't say I would either. It is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed. The lone voice matters not if the herd is running the other direction. It is a pay to play system - and everyone knows it. If you play - you get paid - in one form or another.

It is not the Establishment is some "cabal" or "star chamber" (not that these do not exist). There are numerous big money interests who often disagree and compete with each other. This is fortuitous as it gives the appearance of lack of collusion and in reality it is not really collusion.

As in physics - if you have forces on opposite sides of a ball - the ball does not move. When those forces line up however - the ball goes in that direction.

Where the interest disagree is not the place to look. It is where they agree that the dirt is to be found. The Establishment does not generally care about "Abortion" "Gay Marriage", "Guns", "Illegal immigration" and other hot button issues. These however serve to keep the raging masses divided which is useful.

The Establishment cares about money -and moving that money from the working class to the elite. It also cares about protection of that money and assets via a police state if necessary which involves keeping the masses in check - hence the move towards increasing police powers/tyranny, increased Gov't power, Lack of Transparency, persecution of whistleblowers, censorship and control of the media, trampling in individual liberty, persecution of those that would out crime in Gov't.

 

Peoplespunditdaily? No wonder you didn’t link to the source

 

Is it a lie?

Call it a lie so I can prove you wrong.

 

Show of hands?

 

You mean the majority who refuse to expose themselves to violent attacks from intolerant leftists by disclosing their real feelings about Trump's performance?