Posted on 05/13/2016 4:55:48 AM PDT by Bratch
Beyond the larger context of Globalists VS Nationalists, the internal opposition to Common Sense economic conservatism/nationalism can be fundamentally broken down into two categories:
♦ The first group are those who are fundamentally naive about large and historic economic issues; and how the economy was changed, forced to change, through the past forty years by financial interests who created a second, “false“, paper economy.
This first group is generally young, pseudo-intellectual, and their only reference has been while formally educated within the last thirty years (they’re under 50). Most of the oppositional (conservative) punditry falls into this category. Important to note, this group is also joined by the majority of politicians who are approximately the same age.
♦ The second group are those who truly know better; they are older and wiser, they know the truth because they saw it unfold. However, they are also financially dependent on retention of a narrative that sold the change in the past 40 years. These are the willfully blind who have sold-out to the benefit of, and enrichment from, the false economy.
This second group is intent on retaining a historic set of false assumptions by fraud and deception. Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews and Hugh Hewitt fit into this second grouping. Their framework echo-chambered and passed down to group #1.
The world-view of the first group (younger voices) are fundamentally seeded on social issues. They are in no position to speak accurately about economic matters because they don’t have a reference point underpinning their expressed outlook. Their economic arguments are esoteric opinions, and they never experienced the era of industrial giants.
♦ In most of the modern post-war industrial era (1950-1980) banking was a boring job and only slide rule bean-counters and actuarial accountants moved into that sector of the workforce. Most people don’t like math – these were not exciting jobs. Inside the most boring division of a boring banking industry were the bond departments within the larger bank and finance companies.
The excitement was in the actual economy of Main Street business. The giants of industry created businesses, built things, manufactured products, created innovation and originated internal domestic wealth in a fast-paced real economy. Natural peaks and economic valleys, as the GDP expanded and contracted, based on internal economic factors of labor, energy, monetary policy and regulation.
Main Street generated the pool of politicians because the legislative conduct of politicians had more impact on Main Street. The business agents had a vested interest in political determinations. Political candidates courted industrialists, business owners, and capitalist giants to support them. Main Street USA was in control of DC outcomes.
Despite the liberal talking points to the contrary, this relationship was a natural synergy of business interests and political influence. It just made sense that way, and the grown-ups were generally in charge of it.
♦ Commercial banks courted businesses because bankers needed deposits. Without deposits banks could not generate loans; without loans banks could not generate profits…. and so it was. By rule only 10 percent of a commercial bank’s income could stem from securities.
One exception to this 10% rule was that commercial banks could underwrite government-issued bonds. Investment banks (the bond division) were entirely separate entities. The Glass-Steagall banking laws of 1932 kept it that way.
However, mid 1970’s bank regulators began issuing Glass–Steagall interpretations -that were upheld by courts- and permitted banks and their affiliates to engage in an increasing variety and amount of securities activities. After years of continual erosion of the Glass-Steagall firewall, eventually it disappeared.
This became the origin of the slow-motion explosion of investment banking. If you look back historically from today toward 1980 (ish) what you will find is this is also the ultimate fork where economic globalism began overtaking economic nationalism.
Banks could now make money, much more money, from investment divisions issuing paper financial transactions, not necessarily dependent on actual physical assets. The transactions grew exponentially.
The bond market portion ultimately led to the ’07/’08 housing collapse, and derivative trading (collateralized debt obligations or CDO’s) generated trillions of paper dollars. Business schools in 1980 began calling this the second economy (a false economy, or the invisible economy).
The second economy, which ultimately became the global economy, is also the Wall Street investment economy. Two divergent economies: Wall Street (paper), and Main Street (real).
There is no real property, real capital, real tangible assets in the Wall Street economy. The false economy is based on trades and financial transactions, essentially opinions. Paper shifts, and buys and sells based on predictions and bets (derivatives).
Insurance products create an even larger subdivision within the false economy as hedgers wagered on negative outcomes. The money wagered is exponential – some say more than a quadrillion currently floats.
♦ Now you realize, in hindsight, there had to be a point where the value of the second economy (Wall Street) passed up the first economy (Main Street). Investments, and the bets therein, needed to expand outside of the USA. hence, globalist investing.
However, a second more consequential aspect happened simultaneously.
The politicians became more valuable to the Wall Street team than the Main Street team, and Wall Street had deeper pockets because their economy was now larger.
As a consequence Wall Street started funding political candidates and asking for legislation that benefited their interests.
When Main Street was purchasing the legislative influence the outcomes were beneficial to Main Street, and by direct attachment those outcomes also benefited the average American inside the real economy.
When Wall Street began purchasing the legislative influence, the outcomes therein became beneficial to Wall Street. Those benefits are detached from improving the livelihoods of main street Americans because the benefits are “global” needs. Global financial interests, investment interests, are now the primary filter through which the DC legislative outcomes are considered.
There is a natural disconnect.
♦ When Speaker Paul Ryan says: “Donald Trump and I come from two different wings of the party”, he is specifically pointing out this disconnect, yet few draw attention to it.
Trump represents the Main Street wing, Ryan represents the Wall Street wing.
Going back to the opening paragraphs. The news and opinion punditry never take the time to explain the root cause of the disassociation, because: A) Group one doesn’t understand it; and B) Group two is compensated to remain willfully blind (ignore) to it.
Yes, there is a fundamental ideological conflict within this 2016 election:
This is a great explanation.
On June 23rd 2016, the British public will decide whether to remain a member of the European Union. Brexit: The Movie makes the case for Britain to LEAVE the EU.
Brexit: The Movie lays bare the nature of the European Union - and shows why millions of Brits are voting to leave it.
Brexit: The Movie blows apart the pro-EU propaganda, and makes the case for an independent, confident and outward-looking Britain.
You can watch Brexit: The Movie as a feature-length film, or topic by topic in bite-sized, shareable sections.
Brexit: The Movie is a feature-length documentary film to inspire as many people as possible to vote to LEAVE the EU in the June 23rd referendum.
Brexit: The Movie spells out the danger of staying part of the EU. Is it safe to give a remote government beyond our control the power to make laws? Is it safe to tie ourselves to countries which are close to financial ruin, drifting towards scary political extremism, and suffering long-term, self-inflicted economic decline?
Brexit: The Movie shows a side of the EU they don't want us to see: the sprawling self-serving bureaucracy, the political cynicism, the lack of accountability, the perks, the waste, the cronyism, the corruption.
Brexit: The Movie cuts through the patronizing intellectualism of the noble, higher goals of 'Project Europe', to reveal the self-interestedness of the political-bureaucratic class which runs and benefits from the EU.
Brexit: The Moviehighlights the danger of becoming a prisoner in an insular, backward-looking Fortress Europe. And it explores the exciting opportunities that open up to us when we look beyond the narrow confines of the EU.
Brexit: The Movie looks to the future, arguing forcefully and persuasively that it is safer and wiser to live in a country which is free, independent, self-governing, confident and global.
A CROWDFUNDED FILM FOR THE BRITISH PUBLIC
Brexit: The Movie is a crowdfunded production, financed entirely by donations from the public. It was made possible thanks to the support of more than 1,800 backers, who raised over £300,000 with donations from as little as £1. You can see the list of our incredible backers here.
Our success has been down to the grassroots- with Leave campaign groups and online activists playing a vital role helping us get the word out. Now we're bringing the Brexit: The Movie campaign to the streets – if you'd like to flyer for us or host a regional screening please get in touch!
THE TEAM
Brexit: The Movie is written and directed by filmmaker Martin Durkin, and produced by Wag TV. They are calling it the Brexit, it’s very important to get this out on the net otherwise we in North America will be under the same threat that the United Kingdom is at this time. Brexit, the full movie
Watch online now:
We, the people, are measured against those who would drag us into a global Armageddon of debt and profiteering. This is a war we must win.
The latter half of the article is dead on, but the first bit tying “conservative pundits” to the destruction of Glass-Segall is not only off base, it’s very misleading.
“Most people don’t like math – these were not exciting jobs.”
—
1. accounting is not mathematics. Yes, it adds and subtracts number and works in percentages.
2. a “slide rule” will nether add nor subtract.
3. a slide rule has nothing to do with bean counters.
4. the author of the article probably has never seen and certainly not operated a slide rule. But remember a pencil and slide rule in the hands of scientists put a man on the moon.
-—a “slide rule” will nether add nor subtract.——
doesn’t a slide rule multiply by adding logarithms?
Yes, but I defy you to add a string of numbers up on a slide rule.
A piece of paper and a pencil will in the right hands.
A slide rule will multiply, divide, work in powers and roots, make trig calculations. BUT will not add and subtract. An Abicus will.
I by the way have several of them. My first was a K&E Descilon I purchased when I was in high school. And I have several that were my father-in-law’s. He was an EE.
Real engineers carry them upside down in their hip pocket
♦ When Speaker Paul Ryan says: “Donald Trump and I come from two different wings of the party”, he is specifically pointing out this disconnect, yet few draw attention to it.
Trump represents the Main Street wing, Ryan represents the Wall Street wing.
Going back to the opening paragraphs. The news and opinion punditry never take the time to explain the root cause of the disassociation, because: A) Group one doesn’t understand it; and B) Group two is compensated to remain willfully blind (ignore) to it.
Yes, there is a fundamental ideological conflict within this 2016 election:
Wall Street/Globalists -vs- Main Street/Nationalists
“but the first bit tying “conservative pundits” to the destruction of Glass-Segall is not only off base, it’s very misleading.”
Phil Gramm was certainly instrumental in pushing the passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act 2000. Dismantling Glass-Steagall was a bipartisan effort by people who ignored why it was passed in the first place.
Yes, that looks like my first one. And I have the nice leather pouch with the clip. (not belt clip, but belt loop snap)
smile.
I’m not an engineer. I do have a commercial radio license and an Amateur Extra.
smile.
Pretty harmless crowd?
By the way, my engineer father-in-law was an EE. He worked in the weapons industry for 40 years. He was a high level manager at the plant for >15 years, and he absolutely despised “bean counters” (he knew very very well how to deal with them).
Did you intentionally miss the point of the article?
No, I did read the article and agree with most of it. But it was the wording of the author that provoked a headshake for his symbolism. It was his use of the expression that cooled my enthusiasm for the article.
I am sorry if it looked like I was intentionally redirecting the thread. Never intended that.
There’s so much who struck John about that, when in fact certain elements in both parties were responsible. I thought the article did a better job than most in sort of skirting the issue. It all turns into such a mess with all kinds of finger pointing that people get so caught up in, that they forget the problem that is front and center and needs to be dealt with.
Oh wow, that looks great, I watched the intro so far, thank you :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.