Romney's claim of a "free market" and running a "successful" business is is a LIE!

Dear friends,

The lie that Romney and his ilk make about believing in the so-called "free market" is totally exposed in his and others' practices. Please tell me. Where is the free market, when it comes to food being grown and distributed? Or housing to be built, then sold or rented? Or opinions to be made, or goods and services to be sold though the enticing ads of both the print and electronic media? Are there the same opportunities for everyone to develop and grow? 

The big banks decided back in the late 19th Century to allow businesses to depend on them for capital (called finance capital), rather than the latter getting their own capital (called industrial capital) by earning it. Actually, only the largest companies of certain industries were given the privilege of getting finance capital. It was a "neat trick", because it meant that no one smaller could compete with them, since they (big companies) did not have to worry about waiting for revenues to keep daily operations, buying new equipment, setting up subsidiaries, or providing paychecks for their workers. As a result, monopolies were formed that made sure that there was no "free market".

Yet, under the current capitalist model, the performance of the big companies, from time-to-time meet a dead end, because, at some point, the continuous seeking of profit in and of itself, with no concern for how the success of the business relates to progress of people in communities - aside from the latter’s consumption - and how people live, will, invariably, lead to the dilemma where the “market” must necessarily reach a “saturation point”, as it were, where there are either less or no customers (i.e., consumers), since there will come a time when people will not buy, if for no other reason than the fact that everyone has all of that particular items that they want. Hence, the constant wars in which, especially, the US, Britain, France, and Germany engage, so that they can establish new markets (i.e., new consumers).

In other words, you cannot have an infinite growth of the market, because there are only so many consumers who will want a product. Then what do you do? You have to change the values of society, so that the market reflects those values, instead of vice versa (which is where the US ad other big capitalist nations now stand). But that means giving up either power or wealth to maintain legitimacy. To be sure, the Romney family, and others like them. shun that idea.

G. Djata Bumpus




Read full post

The 1st Presidential Debate - Poor Polemics

"Moreover, the total lack of analysis of what actually unraveled last night proves that what passes off as an "election" `in our fake "democracy" is often nothing more than a personality contest."

Dear friends,

To me, the first of the 2012 presidential debates shows how anti-intellectual most Americans - especially the opinion-making, mainstream media journalists - are. Moreover, the total lack of analysis of what actually unraveled last night proves, as it has always, that what passes off as an "election" `in our fake "democracy" is often nothing more than a personality contest.

I mean, the event had been billed as a debate. Yet, the discipline of polemics was not a part of the agenda. Huh? For example, when Romney mentioned that he would clip the wings of  Sesame Street's Big Bird, President Obama should have asked him what was it that the former governor didn't like about the famous yellow children's icon. It's a simple question! Moreover, such inquiry would have led the thoughtless Romney to babble, bumble, and stumble all over both the stage and the airwaves. Did someone say "polemics"?

The commentator was more than generous about letting each candidate get his points across. Consequently, a competent polemicist would have used that opportunity to make Romney show us who he really is and that in which he really believes. Obama's far superior intellect would have shined. Instead, The president allowed a complete intellectually-challenged lightweight make it seem as if he deserved to be part of the discourse.

When one is in a fight, whether verbally or physically, s/he must have techniques in his or her arsenal, at hand, that will allow him or her to maintain confidence. Losing confidence during a fight can lead to one's defeat. As my old boxing trainer, Val Colbert, taught me, and I still teach, "If you're gonna win a fight, you have to have a cup of confidence to let the other guy know that you gonna win the fight."

In boxing, we have a punch that is called a "jab-to-the-belly". The jab-to-the-belly is what I call the only free pinch in boxing. In other words, all head punches that a fighter throws have a cost, in terms of consequence, be they straight punches like either jabs or "crosses", or round punches like uppercuts and hooks. So I call the jab-to-the-belly, the only "free" punch in boxing, because even if it doesn't land, when thrown properly, there will be no consequence. Therefore, one can maintain his or her confidence by throwing a punch/attacking, without having to worry about being attacked back.

Finally, in the next debate, President Obama should use genuine tactics of polemics, as well as fighting. and go back and keep focus on Romney's Big Bird insult. Again, the whole thing is a personality contest. I hope that next time, the president has a jab-to-the-belly in his arsenal. Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post