Media Oligarch .. Rupert Murdoch

It's funny how opponents of Obama and the democratic party site Obama and the democrats as socialist and Nazis, implying that it is they and not them who are similar or more ideologically in line with the ideals of absolutism and dictator rule when it is in fact they who favor tyrants, dictatorships and absolute rule.

Take for example the man behind the curtain Mr Keith Rupert Murdoch. The epitome of capitalistic dictatorship, The Supreme Media Oligarch, oops there's that term Mr Beck loves so much, except he doesn't really know what it means and to whom it applies. He wouldn't dare point out that by definition his boss Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Media Conglomerate News Corp (2nd only to Disney) is just that.

What most people don't understand is that absolute rule more applies to a capitalist society than a socialist one. The whole premise behind socialism is to create equal opportunities for the proletarian.. The Worker!

In capitalism, your labor is owned by the company that you work for. Yes your labor becomes a proprietary asset.. owned not by the person creating the labor (you) but the owner(s) of the corporation. This is not as bad as long as the person also has the right to start a company of his/her own and therefore own their labor and properties and/or reserve the right to sell their labors to whomever they want if at all. These 2 rules are really what keep capitalism from being modern slavery!

Another fault is that in a capitalistic society if little or no regulation is applied by a democratic government than monopolies will form and therefore destroying a true "Free Market" and enslaving the lower classes.

That is why it's extremely important to regulate the markets to not allow let's say one man to own and control media outlets that reach 40% of all American homes. Very scary stuff indeed. So if we're going to talk Oligarchs let's really talk Oligarchs.

Fiat Money - This is what your money is.. Really..

Fiat Money

What Does Fiat Money Mean?
Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith.

Investopedia explains Fiat Money
Most of the world's paper money is fiat money. Because fiat money is not linked to physical reserves, it risks becoming worthless due to hyperinflation. If people lose faith in a nation's paper currency, the money will no longer hold any value.

How Money Is Created
Now that we've discussed why and how money, a representation of perceived value, is created in the economy, we need to touch on how the central bank (the Federal Reserve in the U.S.) can manipulate the money supply.
Among other things, a central bank has the ability to influence the level of a country's money supply . Let's look at a simplified example of how this is done. If it wants to increase the amount of money in circulation, the central bank can, of course, simply print it, but as we learned, the physical bills are only a small part of the money supply.

Another way for the central bank to increase the money supply is to buy government fixed-income securities in the market. When the central bank buys these government securities, it puts money in the hands of the public. How does a central bank such as the Federal Reserve pay for this? As strange as it sounds, they simply create the money out of thin air and transfer it to those people selling the securities! To shrink the money supply, the central bank does the opposite and sells government securities. The money with which the buyer pays the central bank is essentially taken out of circulation. Keep in mind that we are generalizing in this example to keep things simple. (For more information, see the Federal (the Fed) Reserve Tutorial.)

Conclusion
Remember, as long as people have faith in the currency, a central bank can issue more of it.

Definitions provided by www.investopedia.com.

Liberalism and Conservatism a defining look

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,^[2] and a transparent system of government.^[3][4][5] All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.^[6]

Conservatism in the United States is a major American political ideology. In contemporary American politics, it is often associated with the Republican Party. Core conservative principles include a belief in God and country, and many U.S. conservatives support a fiscal policy rooted in small government, laissez faire capitalism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy, American conservatives usually advocate some moderate aspects of "American exceptionalism", a belief that the U.S. is unique among nations and that its standing and actions do and should guide the course of world history.

Well both ideals seem to be paved in good intention, yet the devil is in the details. Let's start with the ideals affecting us most now, the ones that deal with the economy. The conservative approach believes in a laissez faire approach to capitalism. Okay let the big guys on Wall Street run the show in the assumption that they will play fairly, look out for the common welfare of all who are affected by their decisions and put ethics before profits. Okay so that's a pile of crap, we all know what has happens (and has happened) when you de-regulate big business. They will rape and pillage until nothing is left. It's like telling a virus to play nice and to not spread too much. It's inherit nature does not allow it to follow such a path. Next Supply-side economics, Well that just puts us back to square one. This philosophy shares the same inherit problem of laissez faire economics. You can't expect to give all the chips to the big boys and expect them to spread them out fairly, I mean you literally give all the power to huge corporations (and those who run it). These corporations are only accountable to their shareholders NOT the American people. In doing this you create an entirely different social entity, A Plutocracy! Which is an Oligarchy, which is to say a government controlled by the wealthy few. Very scary stuff indeed.

Liberalism on the other hand, strives to give the people, equal and fair rights throughout, It is not god based, it is people based. It also strives to make the people more involved and have more control over their government. It is after all a democracy and the people should have the rule not Corporation Owners like Rupert Murdoch, who owns the 5th largest media conglomerate in the world and has a very strong far-right agenda that is more than apparent in his news arm of media. However the liberals are not perfect either, the road is on the right path but far more challenging, after all it's easier to give the keys to the house to a selected few, far more a challenge to give them to the entire nation.