Abuse of the word Free Market

Ry · **Posted:** Wed May 28, 2008 8:24 pm

Why are we in these long dragged out wars and why do people abuse the word free market?

Just like Vietnam the point of war is not to win but to prolong. Perpetual conflict means perpetual profit. Not profit for the US in general who loses out but profit for the Multi-national industries in the Military Industrial complex (mostly security, energy, drugs, aero-space, construction, and pointless pork aka 100 thouand dollar to wash clothes etc)

War is not over a particular resouce like back in the day when people fought over gold, opium, indigo, etc. Today War is the resource, its about positioning forces for the next targets to wipe economic and military power rivals. Read the DPG by Wolfowitz and Libby. The point is unchallenged dominace and each war gets used to consolidate wealth into the MIC and strip away liberties so that the elite may rule with impunity as globalize corporate oligarchs.

There is nothing "free market" about no-bid contracts. Each of these businesses are extentions of government. It's the basic transfer of wealth from the people through the state and into the state's hand picked corporations who are in real terms just part of the state, as the same individuals in the government awarding the money work for or later go to work for the same corporations they gave it to.

A better term is socialism for the rich. However socialism normally deals with non-business that is a school does not make a product it makes no money so it needs to be paid for by a state or by tuitions. But business that sell products should make money on the market that way and not by contracts from the state, subsidies from the state or bail outs from the Fed. What we have here is straight up communist only the state does not own private property but that is coming soon trust me. We are facing hyper inflation (11%) and a foreclosure boom.

I think a woman that really bastradized the term free market was Naomi K. Who wrote a book called shock doctrine which confused the "Chicago boys" (aka the Neocons which the British call Neo-Liberals) with free market capitalism just because they were in the same city as Freeman. The Corpotocracy and Bernes-capitalism that came from the Straussian school of thought is a hey penny worth of difference from the old Nobles and commoners ictadari system of feudalism. There is nothing free market about it. Its not free or fair trade for example to lift teriffs when you have one side producing goods which are subsidized by the government and the other side is not. That is what NAFTA is. So naturally the state sponsored side gains a monopoly on things like food etc because they have bottomless pockets. After that they destoy labor pools and so on. Nothing free market about over pricing contracts to do work somewhere with the aim of driving them into debt, yet with work that can't be refused because they've been bombed back into the stone age.

And the reason these billionaires can buy up and control the thrid world once restrictions are lifted is because these billionaires are not part of the free market they are part of that state. This is just an example but it would not matter is Sony made all the TVs in the world because people would get batter TVs it helps the consumer, and if prices rise people will buy different TVs. And you don't even have to have a TV at all. Doesn't matter if the business started in Japan. But it matters when Monsanto controls all your food because it's not based on them making better food or consumer choice it's based on them being granted billions by the state and driving out competition by very dubious means. The consumer just gets fucked.

They even have aims to dominate space. Sounds crazy because these people are crazy. We have a government of total psychopaths. They lied about the war in Iraq for profit and for insane religious beliefs about Israel etc. That means someone sat down and decided how many lives for how many dollars. The Bremer plan which was really the Feith plan was designed to fuck up Iraq on purpose. That was the goal read Oded Yinon. http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/v ... php?t=9538

1982 Oded Yinon Israeli plan for Iraq.

Quote:

"Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization."

Anti-Neocons