Use access key #2 to skip to page content.




April 20, 2009 – Comments (7) | RELATED TICKERS: AIG , GS , JPM


Earlier in DaretothREdux’s blog ‘Bet on Red’ I challenged DaretothRedux and Whereaminow  to offer us an example of what the “small” government they have so passionately and persistently promoted would look like. More concerned with the vision behind my single question, than their prolific postings, Player Option1307 took me to task for not delivering my vision of what a large Government would look like. It is important to know, our Federal Government is not a large one; merely 20% of GDP by Government Expenditures, 34% including State spending. Denmark, Sweden, Qatar and Kuwait, France, Italy, Norway, Columbia and many other Governments spend more than 50% of their countries GDP. Regardless I promised Option that I would try to offer my vision.

Folklore is full of Witches.  American folklore has good Witches like Glinda and Samantha Stephens, almost always contrasted with evil sister Witches. Good Men, helpless against their powers, must use their wits to decide which Witch to trust, and which to destroy. In the past when Witches left folklore and arrived in the land of real life, fear drove men to have Witch hunts and to destroy all who were suspected of being witches. 1690’s Salem Mass is infamous in its efforts to eradicate witchcraft from the real world.

Today Witchcraft has returned, and the Witches appear evil and greedy, determined to bring mischief to the world. They have invaded the world of finance. ‘Financial Witchcraft’ the populace cries out in fear. A ‘Wizard with numbers’ is pointed out and most dreaded of all is ‘Chartologist mumbo jumbo’.  An evil force has taken hold of finance. Men were duped, their brains clouded with the spells of witchcraft. ‘Look away’ the spells said, and Barney Franks stopped watching. ‘Nothing to worry about’ and the weapons of the Securities and Exchange guards were removed.  ‘Trust the financial experts’ and the Treasury was conquered. ‘Everyone is corrupt’ and men turned their heads in dismay. ‘It’s Governments fault’ and the last defense was removed.

Men were lulled with the promises that always appeal to them. ‘Relax control’ they were told, your work has ‘unintended consequences’ so it is best not to try. Free Markets will enrich you, if you just don’t work to guide them. The deserving among you will be rewarded with riches while the undeserving will suffer their weakness.

The Whichcraft runs deep. Which GS trades were made ahead of which Paulson decision? Which calls were made to which trader’s friend? Which AIG execs underfunded which guarantees? Which investment bank salesmen claimed Treasury guaranteed Fannie. Which clubs connect them, which schools?

As is always the case, some men resisted the spells of the witches. Men like Republican Kevin Phillips, who abandoned his party for its loss of values. Men like Robert Monks, an advocate of shareholders rights. Men can guide regulating investment banks. Men like Robert Kuttner and William Greider who understood the move to deregulate was the move to legalize theft. Women like Nomi Prins, and a hopefully vengeful Elliot Spitzer.

The men you ignored were the ones you should have heeded. Men like Ralph Nader, who stood for you while you worked.

Government should be big enough for a which happened when hunt.

The more I hear crying about government intervention on CNBC, the better the work is going.

7 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 20, 2009 at 11:34 PM, awallejr (39.63) wrote:

Am in accord with your sentiment. I do get tired of hearing those CNBCers shouting for the same things that basically got us into trouble to begin with, namely "Gov't stay out, let the free market play." Right now I want the Gov't to at least try.  I do wish more criminal proceedings would be launched though.

Report this comment
#2) On April 20, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Option1307 (30.54) wrote:

More concerned with the vision behind my single question, than their prolific postings, Player Option1307 took me to task for not delivering my vision of what a large Government would look like.

Devoish, as I said before, I am concerned about their lack of a model. While i agree with much of what they say, they do not always provide adequate examples or realistically think of the potential outcomes for such changes. Soem of their ideals (and mine) seem great on paper but lack practicality and would likely be very hard to achieve in real life. Thus, I agree with you that they should be pushed and their ideas challeneged constantly until everyone is satisfied.

However, with that being said, I feel the exact opposite should occur as well. For this to be a educaional conversation/discussion it needs to be a two way street. Therefore, why do you not provide models or examples of your ideal world? Shouldn't your statements be scrutinized equally? Can we not demand the same accountability from you as you do (and I suport) from Dare and Whereaminow?

I know I keep bringing this point up, but it seems to be getting lost in the fray.

Report this comment
#3) On April 21, 2009 at 1:26 AM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

You want a model, fine. I don't know how to post videos, but if you were to go to youtube, and check out Zeitgeist addendum, there is actually a model of one mans vision of an ideal society. I highly recommend watching zeitgeist, and the addendum, as most people I've shown it to have gone on to show everyone they know. It covers deception in politics, finance, and religion. But please don't go on about how none of us have models if all you do is check out the mainstream avenues. 

I love Ralph Nader, and It seemed he wanted to do away with the parts of the government that make it a monstrosity, Ron Paul, left-right politics aside, would have at least made it apparent that the FED needed to go, and would have scaled back our enormous military presence abroad, another major problem with big government.

And not enough attention is paid to the models for big government that have crashed and burned. Try Rome on for size. 

Report this comment
#4) On April 21, 2009 at 9:01 AM, devoish (78.16) wrote:


How many posts had David written without you or anyone asking for a real world model? I cannot make that point  enough. I am immensly happy that you are thinking about it now. I believe I have already offered Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Qatar and a few others as succesful large Gov'ts. There are others. Please do not ignore that again.

The USA is already showing many symptoms of becoming a typical small Gov't model, for while it has laws, it has very little and very selective enforcement. We have been traveling the path to "small" Gov't and it is the path to ruin.


Large Governments can and do fail.

Believe me, I am not impressed that some people watch a you tube video and might not have asked questions. Supply a link and I'll try to find time to watch it too.

I am not sure your statement about Ralph Nader is correct. He was willing to the do the hard work of improving Gov't more than doing away with it. That is why I admire him.

But please don't go on about how none of us have models if all you do is check out the mainstream avenues

I did not say you had no real world models until you failed to produce one. I couldn't think of any succesful small Gov't models so I asked for one.

I am still waiting. 


Report this comment
#5) On April 21, 2009 at 12:10 PM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

In waiting, you demonstrate impotence. I supplied the model, now get off your ass and check the link, Which is simply to search "Youtube Zeitgeist addendum". If that is too complicate for you, I am clearly wasting my time, and might as well go out and discuss politics with the nearby farm animals. they prefer large government too. Some people think they know too much to be educated. At that point they are done learning. Some people just have something to gain by large government, or just get excited to see it in motion. I personally am not impressed by morons in jackboots, but you never know what turns on some folks.

Oh and if your just looking for friends who think like you do, and don't wish to have your view challenged, I can accomodate you there as well. 

Report this comment
#6) On April 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM, devoish (78.16) wrote:

In waiting, you demonstrate impotence

Get some sleep, I was.

Is there a written version of your movies? I could not find one and would rather read in 15 minutes what takes 1 hour by video. One link locked up my computer (not a link to the multi-part video series).

A list of grievances whether valid or not is poor excuse for a "real world" example of small Gov't. From the few minutes I watched of one video it does not sound like you will provide it or are attempting to.

The videos do seem interesting though and I will watch them.

On my schedule.

Report this comment
#7) On April 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

If you watch zeitgeist, all my effort (as easily misconstrued as it could come off as) would be worth while!  I cannot articulate what Zeitgeist can in 15 minutes, or hours. That being said, there are some points that I don't agree with 100%, but at least it explores the other 330 degrees of the pie chart of possible realites. The 30 degrees which are argued in the mainstream media represent the spectrum of acceptable argument, as explained by Noam Chomsky. Like him or not, he makes other political analysts look inferior as far as intellect.

It is my opinion that the truth is not in the spectrum of acceptable argument, and the media is there to keep us arguing amongst ourselves while we should be working in unison to make a better society. Those who benefit from this never want us to understand a fundamental truth about ourselves, and that keeps us arguing between left and right, rich and poor, christian and muslim, and I can guarantee that none of these narrow perspectives is the right way of living, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. That truth is a connectedness between us all that makes us family. We share the collective fate of this planet. Somewhere during the course of our industrial revolution, we became the consciousness of this planet. It is US who determine what this world will become. We determine if it will be thriving peace, or detrimental war. We as a global society, must learn that you reap what you sow, and it doesn't matter if you sow it in someone else's backyard. 

Now, to create strife in order to realize this ultimate goal is the great work of the men behind the curtain. But they have to hold the reigns, and this will never work. One world government- Good, one world government run by the men who have brought us every evil in the society we live in just so they can be the ones to save us from their created problem is a terrifying proposition. The international checks and balances that barely exist anymore would then be completely gone. I believe we will see the ugly side of fascism, and I believe we will see some false messiahs, who tell us something to get elected, and do something completely different once in power. 

The evils that these men have brought us are way beyond what most people can believe, but if you notice patterns, then you can see a problem reaction solution pattern emerge out of policy. The research into the pre-dated desire for the solution is the smoking gun. In order to break down a society to the point where a paradigm shift such as this can occur requires martial law. Martial law is facilitated by breaking constitutional rights of privacy of many citizens to establish who your problem people are in advance. To establish the laws you need, you create a false flag terror attack on your own people, and voila, the news is mentioning the results of a poll they never took telling americans that americans want to sacrifice their liberties for security. The next day a 1000 page bill is signed by cardboard senators who NEVER READ IT, because they couldn't have taking away our constitutional privacy.  The smoking gun is that they have quietly been pushing for these laws since the eightees!

The diseases they've created, the weapons they've sold to extremist nutjobs in places too hot to think straight, the soldiers who've thought they were fighting for a worthy cause, the high school heroin addicts dying because the Afghan poppy industry has multiplied 10x since we have invaded, and the soldier I know who guarded a poppy field in vietnam, removing the dog tags of his men so if they were killed, they couldn't be IDed. The policeman I know who worked for homeland security and says 911 story is farce. The firechief i know who pulled thew wrekage from flight 900 who told me we shot it down, the doctor who works in the most secretive sketchy labs in LI telling my friend something too horrible to mention, that you would not believe, and i cannot substantiate. After doing a little research into this horrible claim i found there was a whole lot a circumstantial evidence to it, but even I still even have limits to what i will say online, pardon my nervous ambiguity.

A friend told me never to take a sledgehammer to someone elses paradigm. for attempting that, i am sorry.   

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners