> Your first mistake was using a "conspiracy theory" book as your sole
> historical reference.
Col. L. Fletcher Prouty did several secret operations, served the coordination
between
CIA, Air Force and the National Security Council and was in personal contact
with
CIA-Director Dulles, the Minister of Defense, the generals and the CIA-agents.
He was
in the "Office of Special Operations" and from 1962 to 1963 he was director of
"Special
Operations" for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon. One of the best
historical
references you can get for secret operations.
> Not only are your examples way out of context, but
> irrelevant. Bell Helicopter was *the* vendor of helicopters to the
> military *long* before the Vietnam (First delivery to the military in
> 1946). Additionally, Bell was one of the most prominent developers of new
> aerospace technologies from WWII through the Vietnam War (first American
> jet powered aircraft, first aircraft to break the sound barrier, *the*
> leader in helicopter technology, etc) and received numerous military
> contracts during the time period prior to the Vietnam war. The founder of
> Bell (Larry Bell?) died circa 1956, at which point the essentially
> leaderless company became more or less for sale until they were finally
> bought by Textron in 1960.
I never contradicted anything in this paragraph.
> First National Bank had very little to do with
> promoting a company who at the time was already considered to be the leader
> in military helicopter technology.
Microsoft was considered to be the leader in operating systems in 1992. Now
what is it
today? The super-leader? Capital accumulates, money goes where money is and
banks
only invest where they can make money. And First National made a lot of money
with Bell/Textron. The helicopter war was an absolute waste of money and
strategically
useless. Of 6415 deaths related to aircraft, 1792 happened in plane crashes
and 4622
in helicopters. Of these 4622 deaths, 1981 (43 %) occurred without any
influence of the enemy. Prouty: "If you had an helicopter, you didn't need any
enemies anymore." Still,
they were used in huge numbers. The US Army didn't know a lot, but they knew
how this
disaster could have been avoided. But they didn't want to avoid it -- it was
part of the strategy.
Similar for the Eurofighter project running now. They officially pay DM 50
billion (!!!)
for it (without the weapon systems), and it's hopelessly overaged. I don't
regret this (in fact I prefer inactive weapons) but it's a great present to
those building it. Will probably cost them 10 % of what they earn with it. And
who pays this present? I do, with loan taxes and value added tax, which will
be raised once again next year (while my potential pension will be decreased
again).
You say: The government steals your money. But the government gives the money
to those producing the Eurofighter (and other industries). It's just
redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich -- some weird kind of Robin
Hood game. How blind must you be not to see this?
> Boeing is an even stupider example, which I'll get to in a moment.
>
> >> To blame "Businessmen" for wars, you must ignore the fact that MOST
> >> of them, on either side, LOSE money in wartime.
> >
> >I don't ignore it, it's true. But the really big enterprises, of course
> >especially arms industry, usually profit from war -- and the big banks behind
> >them do as well.
> You shot yourself in the foot here. Boeing nearly went *bankrupt* after
> WWII, as production of wartime products effectively stopped. Boeing bet
> the entire company on the 707 whiched was successful enough to keep the
> company going.
You're right, they nearly went bankrupt after war. *After* war. Quoting from
their
web site:
"At the height of the war, Boeing was assembling 362 B-17s per month. Yet that
effort paled in comparison to production at North American, which built 42,683
airplanes -- including more than 15,000 T-6 Texan trainers -- for an average
of nearly 600 airplanes per month during World War II."
While it ran, it brought the banks behind Boeing profit. Certainly. (Although
I don't know who was behind Boeing at that time and whether they exited after
the war - would be interesting.) Of course, when war is over and you've got
all your factories running at warp speed, you'll get problems.
> The huge profit increases from '65-'70 correspond to the wildly successful
> sales of the Boeing 727 (starting in 1964) and the best-selling commercial
> aircraft ever, the 737, which became an instant success when introduced in
> 1967. The large profit increases you noted were in no way related to war
> time efforts, but in the commercial sector instead.
You might be right here. But while you insinuate that what I presented was
based on a "conspiracy theory", you did not give any sources at all. This
makes things a lot easier.
> I *seriously* suggest that you take the time to research your evidence
> prior to puking this crap all over the mailing list. By citing your sole
> source as a conspiracy novel, you make yourself look like even more of an
> idiot.
Your insults and those of others (you're not the first and not the last one
calling me an idiot) just show me that you have no serious arguments against
me.
> Rich families are always in the top political positions because it is very
> expensive to be a politician. This is true even in the most socialist
> countries. But it is a good investment for rich people because the
> government is an advantageous source of power that they can control. A
> source of power that wouldn't exist on the free market. Take away this
> unfair advantage and they have to compete based on their virtues, just like
> everyone else.
Utter nonsense. We're not just talking about "a rich family" with a few
millions set aside. We're talking about a family with connections to the
people who trade *BILLIONS* every day. These people can put an end to any
company they own, if they want to see Sun dead, Sun is dead, if they want to
see M$ dead, Bill will get a run for his money.
Such direct influence as happened with Bush is rare, but sometimes it occurs.
In most cases, politicians are just straw men. Richard Nixon applied for the
job of a politician when he read an announcement in a newspaper. They're
recruited by the power elite, told what to do and they do it. Period.
> Well duh. That's the whole point. A free market economy has never been
> tried in any significant sense because government always gets in the way.
> Do you think the government wants a free market?
They do not want the truly free market you imagine. As I said before, it could
be nice. But it won't work because some kind of government - I couldn't have
said it better myself - always gets in the way. It's simply economically
impossible. Power structures exist, the money *is* concentrated. Money will
keep its value when government is removed - and those who possess will be able
to exercise power.
> Come to Silicon Valley
> sometime and ask your average independant consultant. Even a "pseudo-free
> market" like the Internet scares the hell out of government because it
> devalues their power structures. But hey, they're in a postion to
> legislate that nuisance away...
We can make a little bet. Two bets, to be precise. Bet number one: E-commerce
with cybercash will boom in the next two years. Bet number two: Mainly the
(semi-)monopolies of today (who don't miss the train) will profit from it.
> So what are you missing? It obviously follows that if you eliminate the
> government, you eliminate the power elite.
No, that's the major mistake you make. You only eliminate the current form of
government. It will immediately (!) be replaced by a new form, probably more
brutal.
But we're just talking theoretical. You won't be able to accomplish this, not
even with Eugene in your militia. The problem is that parts of the power elite
might do it.
> Another example is the United States, where unemployment is at a record
> lows attributed almost entirely to increased productivity in the economy.
Yawn. Your record lows have been refuted so often, it's getting boring. First,
you count the jobs. Second, the standard of living has decreased together with
the loans. Third, the accumulation of money has also increased. I have posted
evidence for all of this before, but you will find it on my web page
(http://www.excelsior.org/~erik/documents.html) in case you weren't there.
> The only people who have to work harder are people too inflexible or too
> stupid to work smarter. Average people would enjoy the benefits of
> progress a great deal more if they spent more of their energy accustomizing
> themselves to it rather than resisting it. Ability to adapt *is* an
> evolutionary advantage.
You have misunderstood me. I advocate many kinds of progress, from cloning to
nanotechnology. Much is pointless, like cryo, but I'd like to see it develop
anyway. It just has to be cleverly used. People are simply too uneducated. If
we could educate the power elites, this would probably be good enough to
ensure a better living.
> In a free market economy, it is highly unlikely that all the major
> industries would be making record profits and unemployment would be
> increasing.
I have the evidence around me. Our economy is as free as a bee (i.e. as free
as the power elites want it to be). Darwinian selection doesn't work very well
since people have gained the ability to destroy each other in large numbers.
> Too protect populations from people with power who don't have your high
> moral standards? Actually, there is a rather large difference between
> European militaries and the US military in general (which may be tempering
> your view). In many European countries (Germany, for example) the military
> is used as an auxiliary police arm of the government, many times quite
> violently. This is simply not the case with the professional US
> militaries, which have virtually no adversarial contact within the domestic
> population.
The military is rarely, if ever used as an auxiliary police arm in Germany.
Most of the time it just sits around doing nothing. (They want to participate
in the coming war in Bosnia, but it remains to be seen whether they'll be able
to do it. Our current defense minister won't take part in it, this is sure.)
Still they buy weapons and cost us lots of money. I have to pay for this shit.
I don't like that, but the less real government we have, the more I'll have to
pay.
-- http://www.excelsior.org/~erik ** Chief Editor of Homo Excelsior: The Transhumanist's Magazine ** http://www.excelsior.org