Tony (author) said (July 20, 2010):

I'm a bit surprised at the number of people who already thought this way because it never gets mention anyplace I see.

My insights, if that's the correct word, are almost identical to "Zack's." I really appreciate his comments.

Also "Bert's." His take goes in a different direction from what I offered but he is dead on correct in that direction.

Contrarily, you can see the sad effect of false (masonic) libertarianism on people in their ignorant defense of capitalism. Took me awhile to see what libertarianism was up to and, interestingly, this article smoked it out of them as the final proof for me. The only "liberty" those behind libertarianism are interested in is the liberty to rape the world without any interference from such bothersome entities as governments of the people.

What does that do for the pedestal on which Ron Paul (and a host of lesser knowns) has been enthroned?

Mark said (July 20, 2010):

hanks for the take on market principles by Tony.

The article left out the role of the free consumer in market determination. In my way of thinking free markets allow, through choices, to foster or destroy an idea, product or service. Manipulating free market capitalism is achieved through the press, government and business joining forces to falsify the nature of perception, competition and quality in that order. Public/private partnerships are the latest example of this practice.

Free market capitalism imo isn’t something to be shunned if it is allowed to function uninhibited instead of controlled at a monopolistic level.

Another factor for fooling the natural market governor is the foolish availability of leveraging or debt. If the ambient market atmosphere is diluted with buy now/pay later economics (lower than normal interest rates) the consumer is more likely to be affected by slick advertisements and impulse buying instead of thoroughly researching the quality, price and true need of that item or service causing incorrect market actions.

The consumer for the most part has been removed as a viable correcting factor in the retail/wholesale industry causing the effects which we are now receiving.

Just my two cents,

Bert said (July 20, 2010):

very good article

I try to point out that the first essential characteristic of capitalism is ... absence of God.

Adam Smith did not define capitalism, but he spoke of capital -- cash emitted by London bankers. Instead of a Federal Reserve, Smith proposed an "invisible monoglove" (hehe) for their smokescreen.

Basically, Smith says that God (he uses the word "creator") created the "Great Machine" and then He wandered off, to powder his nose somewhere. In His absence, Smith then proposes that his invisible hand then take over, and supervise the winding down. He is explicit as to the motivations behind the invisible wacko-jacko monoglove of God ... greed, sloth and lust. He is also explicit when he says that the proper study of the political-economic systems of men must begin with the study of fawning dogs. Humanity is a fawning dog, who fawns after his master, much as a capitalist fawns after his London bankers. Smith was also AGAINST free trade. While he was explicitly protectionist as regards industrial and agricultural sovereignty of Merry old England, he was "free trade" as regards everybody else, e.g. the colonies.

The first person to use the word "capitalist" and give it a definition was none other than ... KARL MARX. The book is called Das Kapital. He (and Engles) wrote it when Marx' backers (Rothschild) realized that they needed a stepping stone to get from sovereignty economics of the U.S. Constitution, and full blown communism. Capitalism is exactly identical to communism. There is no go too far to the left, and you end up right, and vice versa. People who think there is a difference don't understand the proper definition of property. Basically, both systems are Marxist materialist and existentialist. They equate property only with the inert "res" or stuff (a huge topic -- sorry) and leave out the happiness part, where property is infused with the creativity and personality of its owner, as possessor and occupier. Stuff made in China, bought at Walmart, and piled up in the back of the garage, is NOT property. It never rises above the level of Marxist-capitalist stuff.

Every economist since Marx who has written a text book on capitalism has been an avowed New World Order Marxist. Milton Friedman, to wit. All stooges were for the capitalist frauds of Federal Reserve bankers. And more importantly, NONE ever mention God. Smith came the closest ... but he said God had decided to take a vacation, so that the invisible monoglove of London bankers could take over, as the Great Machine, or Great Clock, of the Universe winds itself down.

Sad that so many people call themselves "capitalists" and don't have a clue that they may as well be saying that they are Marxists -- Marx wrote the first book which defined what capitalism is, and its meaning hasn't changed one iota since them. Capitalism is another word for usurpation of sovereignty by bank fraud, plan and simple. It is also another word for Godlessness.

Zach said (July 20, 2010):

Dear Dr. Makow, I found the article you posted by Tony Blizzard very interesting. It's spot on in its assessment of the true nature of capitalism. The advocates of the Austrian School speak of the 'market' in quasi-mystical terms as if it were an animate being with a will of its own, always turned toward the good of all. They seem to have forgotten that it is human beings who are the actual cause of economic effects, & that all human beings are by nature corrupted & bent towards evil as a result of original sin.

When there is no regulation whatsoever of the conduct of businessmen, the natural result is of course that the most vicious & utterly worthless criminally inclined filth rise to the top by means of various stratagems, all of them iniquitous. One example would be that of a larger business or corporation selling at a loss in order to put a smaller competitor out of business. They can easily make up their losses once they've obtained the desired monopoly.

This sort of thing was prohibited in most Christian states during the Middle Ages, & certainly ought to be prohibited & severely punished today. After the protestant revolt, the predatory bankers could of course simply migrate to the new usurer-friendly protestant states & set up a base of operations in Amsterdam or London as Mr. Blizzard described in the article. I know many persons who believe that things were much better fifty or sixty years ago. I suppose on a more general societal level this is true, but the real origins of the predicament we find ourselves in today are to be found in the Renaissance & protestant revolt.

It appears that the Austrian School & the broader libertarian movements ( & the various protestant sects as well I believe) are yet more of the myriads of pseudo-philosophies & economic theories that have been invented by the Jewish banker families & their agents down through the centuries to act as red herrings & straw men to divert attention from the real culprits.

And by offering the false hope of some degree of relief or amelioration of prevailing misery, they at times served as a sort of anaesthetic for the multitudes suffering under the effects of banker tyranny as well. This being in addition of course to the many 'isms' used as control & herding mechanisms, such as communism &c. The bankers are incredibly wicked, but at the same time they probably wouldn't have been able to accomplish nearly so much as regards implementing their world dictatorship if the people hadn't eagerly accepted the promotion of vice, & the idea that they must satiate their passions & lusts to the fullest possible extent.

The more I see of modern man, the more I become convinced that a dictatorship is indeed needed. Not a diabolical predatory banker dictatorship of course but one that would operate in obedience to the Laws of the Holy Gospel. Something like General Franco had in Spain.

Every day I look about & realize that the mass of men have been turned into a great mob of neo-pagan savages. If modern man will not cease doing what is wrong simply because it is wrong, then he ought to be constrained by armed force to leave off doing it.

JL said (July 20, 2010):

Capitalism is private monopoly. Communism, an invention of the capitalists , is state monopoly. Free enterprise is a whole different thing. In a true free enterprise economy there are no private or state monopolies! Screw the capitalists and their controlled opposition stooges the communists and socialists!

Andrei said (July 19, 2010):

've been reading your website for a number of years and have enjoyed every single one you've written. You have addressed the most serious issues facing us today in a clear and concise manner unlike most other writers today. I have, however, a couple of objections to some ideas posted on your website. Your most recent one by Tony Blizzard suggested that free enterprise and capitalism are not the same thing. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods or services between two or more people or groups without coercion or use of force from any party involved. Just because the word 'capitalism' itself has been derided as somehow more evil than free enterprise doesn't make it so. They are in fact one and the same. What is to blame for today's crisis is precisely what Ron Paul's anti-government rhetoric suggests: businesses and governments working together to increase their power and influence at the expense of common citizens. This has many far more appropriate names: corporatism, fascism, cronyism, etc. Capitalism doesn't involve bailouts, subsidies, tax exemptions, or any other type of favoritism.

I'd also like to take the time to reply to a previous post of yours titled "Use World Currency to Renounce the Debt!". I must say that in this you are mistaken and that again the gold/silver camp is right. If you have time (I am certain your time is precious and you have much to do and read) look into Austrian Economics for the answer. To keep things short I will merely say that a medium of exchange cannot be given to a small group of people for them to control whether they are the government or semi-secret central bankers. It may very well be true that Mises was given a job through the Rockefeller Foundation or that Ron Paul may be Freemason but this does not in any way detract from the fact that Austrian Economics is based on common sense and logic and is the only system that can lead to the greatest freedom and prosperity for the greatest number of people. This is capitalism.

Michael said (July 19, 2010):

Thanks for this, Tony and Henry. Nicely put and concise. I've been trying to get this message through to people for a while; usually what I tell them is that free enterprise is the local shoe store and mechanic, capitalism is WalMart. Capitalism is predatory, with the goal of destroying all competition and monopolizing all trade.

Much the same can be said about the BS known as democracy. Democracy has been touted over the past half-century as some sort of ideal of freedom, when all it has even been is mob rule where 51% of your neighbors can decide how you should live your life. Even that might be livable if one had a choice to move elsewhere and find a community where one's neighbors agreed with one's own lifestyle, but that's not the plan. In effect, democracy in our time is simply the media manipulation of the masses to serve the purposes of those who control the media. That explains why there are absurd programs like motor-voter registration, aimed at diluting the amount of potentially informed voters with a large pool of those who wouldn't otherwise bother to register or vote and definitely won't bother to be informed.

I could continue with the false paradigms of what are today called liberals and conservatives, but it's all the same lies from the same source.