Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself..... (MD Don't fully agree, while the PEOPLE need to keep an eye on private power being abused, a strong state is not the answer to that. In fact the worst scenario is strong State and Corporate powers combining to give a true definition of fascism).... That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.... (MD I've seen a number of definitions of fascism now, but for me fascism is more about control of the people in general, than the government. Sure government can be corrupted by any power, whether that be private companies, Unions, terrorists, or just devious criminals which then leads to fascism, but there are many ways it can happen. In fact, private power can just as well be used for good to hold government in check, but the people have to stay ever vigilant to ensure neither state itself, corporation or any other collective of humans utilise the machinery of the state to oppress the people. Even democracy can be utilised to do that, if another people believe in enslaving their fellow man.).....
The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its Business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.... (MD Not sure what he means by "liberty of democracy". Democracy does not necessarily lead to liberty, so the rest of it then becomes a bit irrelevant, no matter how much I agree that business needs to provide a living for the masses. I actually fear technology rendering people obsolete more than anything in that respect, which would fundamentally change everything and lead to a very different society)....
Both lessons hit home.
Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.... (MD a successful economy will always mean private power will grow. That is not necessarily as bad thing, but the people have to watch for misuse of that power more than it being concertated, which they are historically bad at doing. For that reason, the first target of corrupt power is usually government, the bigger and more unaccountable the government, the more of a target it is. See European Union).....
This concentration is seriously impairing the economic effectiveness of private enterprise as a way of providing employment for labor and capital and as a way of assuring a more equitable distribution of income and earnings among the people of the nation as a whole.... (MD I agree if the power is used to buy off government and use it to make rules and regulations that make life hard for small companies and people, thus favouring the big guys this is true. A great example of this is the way the European Union works, spewing out thousands of rules and regulations that large corporations either lobby for, or get their insiders in unelected commission to propose on a nod and a wink. The fact the people can't vote them out of office is perfect for that to go unchecked and is fertile ground for true fascism to flourish).
THE GROWING CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER.
Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935:
Ownership of corporate assets:
Of all corporations reporting from every part of the nation, one-tenth of 1 per cent of them owned 52 per cent of the assets of all of them; ....(MD it makes sense that the most successful companies will own the lions share of assets. That's what success brings. This should however make people scrutinise those companies to a) Make sure they acquired it fairly and not by buying of the government to stack things in their favour. b) If they are then not utilising the power they have acquired in a decent way, people should shun them and refuse to utilise them ever again, or until they are using their power in a fair way. Getting the government to beat them up just because they have done well is insane. However if they are using their power for bad or gained it through dodgy ways, then having a very accountable government is useful, but more than that, a population that gives a shit is essential)
and to clinch the point:
Of all corporations reporting, less than 5 per cent of them owned 87 per cent of all the assets of all of them. (MD... Again that doesn't necessarily need to be a bad thing, but I fully agree the likelihood is it is a bad thing. I would suggest though, that the only way a private corporation could manage to get that much power unfairly, is by utilising the State machinery to get there. Otherwise people would simply start their own businesses and shun the big bad ones. If the big ones make that impossible by having government buddies stack the decks in their favour, then the people have to stop accepting government that makes that possible (such as the EU), no matter how much that government buys off a portion of the public with hand-me-outs or made up "rights" to gain favour)
Income and profits of corporations:
Of all the corporations reporting from every part of the country, one-tenth of, per cent of them earned 50 per cent of the net income of all of them ....(MD see the response given above);
and to clinch the point:
Of all the manufacturing corporations reporting, less than 4 per cent of them earned 84 per cent of all the net profits of all of them. ...(MD see the points made above)
The statistical history of modern times proves that in times of depression concentration of business speeds up. Bigger business then has larger opportunity to grow still bigger at the expense of smaller competitors who are weakened by financial adversity. ....(MD I maintain that this requires 3 factors to truly reach problematic levels. 1) An asleep, uninvolved people. 2) Government willing to be bought off. 3) An unaccountable government for when the people finally to start smelling a rat.)
The danger of this centralization in a handful of huge corporations is not reduced or eliminated, as is sometimes urged, by the wide public distribution of their securities. The mere number of security-holders gives little clue to the size of their individual holdings or to their actual ability to have a voice in the management. In fact the concentration of stock ownership of corporations in the hands of a tiny minority of the population matches the concentration of corporate assets. ...(MD Again, if the people who acquired that ownership did so fairly and didn't use it to buy of government or other dubious methods, no problem. However, I suspect that's exactly what many of them did, but the people allowed it and even supported it with their actions.)
1929 was a banner year for distribution of stock ownership.
But in that year three-tenths of , per cent of our population received 78 per cent of the dividends reported by individuals. This has roughly the same effect as if, out of every 300 persons in our population, one person received 78 cents out of every dollar of corporate dividends while the other 299 persons divided up the other 22 cents between them. (MD... Better start asking some questions about how that happened then. Did they steal it? Did they stack the decks in their favour by getting governments to put favourable conditions to do business in their favour? How did the guy you voted for address this? If the guy making the rules for commerce can't be unelected, is that maybe part of the problem (see EU).
The effect of this concentration is reflected in the distribution of national income.
A recent study by the National Resources Committee shows that in 1935-36:
47 per cent of all American families and single individuals living alone had incomes of less than $1,000 for the year; and at the other end of the ladder a little less than 1 1/2 per cent of the nation's families received incomes which in dollars and cents reached the same total as the incomes of the 47 per cent at the bottom; ....(MD again I don't expect income to be equal across the board, the smart and hard working should get more, then if they risk that hard earned wealth to make more, then good for them. All I am interested in, is do they ABUSE the power they acquire to unfairly stack the decks. Making great products at cheap prices because they have the resources to do so is not stacking the decks. Buying off government to rig markets, impose taxation that kills the small guy, getting their State friend to impose bureaucracy that strangles the little guy are. See European Union for a great example of this).
Furthermore, to drive the point home, the Bureau of Internal Revenue ....(MD Legalised theft mongers who steal money from working people) reports that estate tax returns in 1936 show that: 33 per cent of the property which was passed by inheritance was found in only 4 per cent of all the reporting estates ...(MD good, why are they trying to steal people's fairly accrued wealth). (And the figures of concentration would be far more impressive, if we included all the smaller estates which, under the law, do not have to report.) ....(MD well there is your biggest thieves and concentrators of wealth right there then, the government).
We believe in a way of living in which political democracy and free private enterprise for profit should serve and protect each other—to ensure a maximum of human liberty not for a few but for all. (...MD yey that sounds dandy, though he should remember that democracy is simply the least worst option in making politicians accountable and not for use in stacking the decks in your favour over someone else).
It has been well said that "the freest government, if it could exist, would not be long acceptable, if the tendency of the laws were to create a rapid accumulation of property in few hands, and to render the great mass of the population dependent and penniless." ....(MD every example of over powerful government has lead to exactly that. See North Korea. See Soviet Union. See European Union).
Today many Americans ask the uneasy question: Is the vociferation that our liberties are in danger justified by the facts? ...(MD liberty is ALWAYS in danger, it has to be defended constantly and ferociously, you give an inch and a gang of thieves somewhere will take you to the cleaners).
Today's answer on the part of average men and women in every section of the country is far more accurate than it would have been in 1929—for the very simple reason that during the past nine years we have been doing a lot of common sense thinking (...MD I doubt it, that's just arrogance that every generation seems to think it is smarter and has the answers over the last).... Their answer is that if there is that danger it comes from that concentrated private economic power which is struggling so hard to master our democratic government....(MD see this is where he completely fucks up. 1) not all private power is acquired unfairly and then used unfairly. 2) Those that are, are drawn like a moth to a flame to government. Because government are the only entity that can make the laws they want, steal the money they want and bomb the shit out of people who get in the way. Yes there are bad people in the private realm, but they would be relatively feeble if they didn't have willing accomplices in government. The worst possible scenario is having unelected, irremovable accomplices with unlimited power to impose theft, rules on how to live and hoops for everyone to jump through (see European Union).... It will not come as some (by no means all) of the possessors of that private power would make the people believe-from our democratic government itself. (...MD almost correct, but not quite. Democratic governments are at least accountable, if the people are paying attention. It's the only form of government anyone should consider allowing (don't see European Union). However the other essential factors are 1) The people have to be alert, vigilant and truly understand what liberty is, means and what the alternative is. Once that goes, you will end up with bad government. Sadly bad people are always drawn to government, because of the power it brings and they will lie, cheat and con the public too (see European Union). 2) The power of the government MUST be limited. There are things a government should simply not be able to do, such as steal or tell someone how to live their life if they are not adversely impacting anyone else. Sadly, the conmen, liars and cheats have honed their skills and have become experts at taking a docile and careless people and giving them the royal shaft. Once that happens, then the corporations with bad guys who have climbed to the top link up with them and form a Mafia over the people (See European Union).
FINANCIAL CONTROL OVER INDUSTRY
Even these statistics I have cited do not measure the actual degree of concentration of control over American industry.
Close financial control, through interlocking spheres of influence over channels of investment, and through the use of financial devices like holding companies and strategic minority interests, creates close control of the business policies of enterprises which masquerade as independent units. (...MD, hey government set the rules here and now you're moaning that they are being utilised in this way? You don't like the practice and see it being abused, you better do something about it and put it to the people.)
That heavy hand of integrated financial and management control lies upon large and strategic areas of American industry. The small business man is unfortunately being driven into a less and less independent position in American life. You and I must admit that. (... I certainly do and it wouldn't have happened without State interference).
Private enterprise is ceasing to be free enterprise and is becoming a cluster of private collectivisms: masking itself as a system of free enterprise after the American model, it is in fact becoming a concealed cartel system after the European model. (...MD bloody hell he knew about the EU before it even existed. Smart guy. So remind me what he did to project the small guy from the big guy misusing power. )
We all want efficient industrial growth and the advantages of mass production. (...MD good of him to admit this is a good thing, not a bad one). No one suggests that we return to the hand loom or hand forge (...MD what about when robots can do anything better than a human, it's a matter of time. I agree with him though, you can't stop progress, you adapt to it and embrace it. Who knows one day we may all be tended to by robots, who do all the work while we play sport, Music and do art). A series of processes involved in turning out a given manufactured product may well require one or more huge mass production plants. Modern efficiency may call for this. But modern efficient mass production is not furthered by a central control (...MD see EU) which destroys competition among industrial plants each capable of efficient mass production while operating as separate units. Industrial efficiency does not have to mean industrial empire building...(MD what destroys competition other than a company being bad. Oh that's right, you wankers in government making it hard for the small guy to survive by making it expensive, bureaucratic and weighted in favour of your buddies who put you in power. If you weren't there, the smaller guys would have way more chance of succeeding, especially when the people are awake and avoid bad big boys like the plague).
And industrial empire building, unfortunately, has evolved into banker control of industry. We oppose that. (...MD who is this we? From what I have seen of history, government has absolutely loved to work with bankers or whoever else has money and power, as long as they get their cut).
Such control does not offer safety for the investing public. Investment judgment requires the disinterested appraisal of other people's management. It becomes blurred and distorted if it is combined with the conflicting duty of controlling the management it is supposed to judge. (...MD Wow he's foreseeing the EU again, this guy is incredible).
Interlocking financial controls have taken from American business much of its traditional virility, independence, adaptability and daring—without compensating advantages. They have not given the stability they promised. (...MD yes and they couldn't have done it without the State. I hope you are suitably ashamed).
Business enterprise needs new vitality and the flexibility that comes from the diversified efforts, independent judgments and vibrant energies of thousands upon thousands of independent business men. (...MD amen, let me know when you have completely deregulated small business and abolished taxation on them too. Then you will have an absolute swarm of competition. Oh what's that? You mate at the big corp won't let you do that, I am shocked, shocked I tell you).
The individual must be encouraged to exercise his own judgment and to venture his own small savings, not in stock gambling but in new enterprise investment. Men will dare to compete against men but not against giants. (...MD started off so well and then somehow disappeared up own backside. Stocks are just a method of giving people a chance to invest in business. You think that system is being abused in some way, then do something about it big boy).
THE DECLINE OF COMPETITION AND ITS EFFECTS ON EMPLOYMENT
In output per man or machine, we are the most efficient industrial nation on earth. (...MD yeah it was, when the country had limited government and the State was seen with the utter suspicion it deserve due to history, so much so that a constitution was put in place to try and ensure it stayed that way. Unfortunately, the history fades into grey, then black and all the same God damned mistakes are made all over again, so that mighty machine grown from the fertile ground of ALMOST liberty, is then raped and destroyed by the parasites of the state once more.)
In the matter of complete mutual employment of capital and labor we are among the least efficient.
Our difficulties of employing labor and capital are not new. We have had them since good free land gave out in the West at the turn of the century. They were old before we undertook changes in our tax (...MD whoo whoo more theft, that will sort things out. Not) policy or in our labor and social legislation (...MD ah, telling a man how he can do business, the big boys love it, because the smaller guys are hit hard). They were caused not by this legislation (...MD LOL, politicians haven't changed much have they, it wasn't me)... but by the same forces which caused the legislation (MD... yeah government, sometime bribed by big power, sometimes not, but always government). The problem of bringing idle men and idle money together will not be solved by abandoning the forward steps we have taken to adjust the burdens of taxation more fairly (...MD a future Lib Dem term meaning in the people I like's favour) and to attain social justice (...MD screams it's Tony Fricking Blair but in Amerka) and security (... MD screams it's George Fricking Bush from the past).
If you believe with me in private initiative (...MD but you just spent most of the time slagging off the fruits of that)..., you must acknowledge the right of well-managed small business (...MD yeah that should be up to the management, not you or other jumped up little fascists) to expect to make reasonable (...MD reasonable, according to whom?) profits. You must admit that the destruction of this opportunity follows concentration of control of any given industry into a small number of dominating corporations (..MD no not really. If the small company wasn't hamstrung by taxation and bureaucracy imposed by you on behalf of your bent corporate masters, then their small and thus agile nature would allow them to run rings around corps and tailor their services to local people, as no big corp could and attract people who like working with small companies (who in the main are the best people in my experience. No it's not the big corps alone preventing this, they couldn't do it without you and what is worse, is you are the one's actually doing the evil ).
One of the primary causes of our present difficulties lies in the disappearance of price competition in many industrial fields, particularly in basic manufacture where concentrated economic power is most evident—and where rigid prices and fluctuating payrolls are general. (...MD yeah and as stated before, that's in the main down to you throbbers).
Managed industrial prices mean fewer jobs (MD... PLEASE tell that to the EU). It is no accident that in industries, like cement and steel, where prices have remained firm in the face of a falling demand, payrolls have shrunk as much as 40 and 50 per cent in recent months. Nor is it mere chance that in most competitive industries where prices adjust themselves quickly to falling demand, payrolls and employment have been far better maintained. By prices we mean, of course, the prices of the finished articles and not the wages paid to workers.
When prices are privately managed at levels above those which would be determined by free competition, everybody pays. (...MD is he talking about the minimum wage? No he said privately didn't he, as long as his whore like government call the shots, he flips 180. Cartels I totally agree can distort, so do something about that Mr Government.)
The contractor pays more for materials; the home builder pays more for his house; the tenant pays more rent; and the worker pays in lost work. (MD.... yeah we all want competition, let's make it almost impossible for the small guy to fail, by getting completely off his back and you can't get smaller than the individual.)
Even the Government itself is unable, in a large range of materials, to obtain competitive bids. It is repeatedly confronted with bids identical to the last cent. (MD.. Waaah, waaaah, better get to work on freeing up the small guys then.)
Our housing shortage is a perfect example of how ability to control prices interferes with the ability of private enterprise to fill the needs of the community and provide employment for capital and labor. (MD... No disagreement here, but what's your POA FDR?)
On the other hand we have some lines of business, large and small, which are genuinely competitive. Often these competitive industries must buy their basic products from monopolistic industry (...MD No bigger monopoly than BIG government), thus losing, and causing the public to lose, a large part of the benefit of their own competitive policy. Furthermore, in times of recession, the practices of monopolistic industries make it difficult for business or agriculture which is competitive and which does not curtail production below normal needs, to find a market for its goods even at reduced prices. For at such times a large number of customers of agriculture and competitive industry are being thrown out of work by those non-competitive industries which choose to hold their prices rather than to move their goods and to employ their workers. (MD....Soooooo, light the fires of freedom under the small companies then, what's stopping you, get to it. Abolish tax and regulation on the smaller companies, make it so, call me when it's done).
If private enterprise left to its own devices becomes half regimented and half-competitive, half-slave and half-free, as it is today, it obviously cannot adjust itself to meet the needs and the demands of the country. (...MD Jees he was saying this back then, he should see the sack of shit we have now. You would almost think successive governments, growing bigger all the time had made the problem worse, not better..... Oh wait)
Most complaints for violations of the anti-trust laws are made by business men against other business men. Even the most monopolistic business man disapproves of all monopolies but his own. We may smile at this as being just an example of human nature, but we cannot laugh away the fact that the combined effect of the monopolistic controls which each business group imposes for its own benefit, inevitably destroys the buying power of the nation as a whole. (... Cool, he's going to come all out against big government and centralised control here isn't he (see EU)..
COMPETITION DOES NOT MEAN EXPLOITATION
Competition, of course, like all other good things, can be carried to excess. Competition should not extend to fields where it has demonstrably bad social and economic consequences (... MD Ah, here we go, his inner fascist bursting out to prescribe what is good for us). The exploitation of child labor (..MD oh that sounds awful, but what if the child and parents are happy to do the work? ), the chiseling of workers' wages (...MD playing to the left, yes we can have cheap prices, competition but with massive wages as long us you let us force them on evil companies), the stretching of workers' hours (...MD yeah, let's force companies to have 10 hour weeks, FREEEDOM), are not necessary, fair or proper methods of competition. I have consistently urged a federal wages and hours bill to take the minimum decencies of life for the working man and woman out of the field of competition. (..MD and this my friend, show he has ABSOULTUELY no faith in liberty, the markets, competition or anything he claims. He knows best. Him and his buddies should decide for all of our own good and if we don't like it, then tough. Mmmmm, I love the smell of real fascism in the morning)
It is of course necessary to operate the competitive system of free enterprise intelligently (...MD left speak for our way or the highway). In gauging the market for their wares, business men, like the farmers, should be given all possible information by government (..MD ah there you go, now he wants government involvement in business wherever possible and all for just a large fee, that can be removed from the real word and used to feed his parasitic face) and by their own associations so that they may act with knowledge and not on impulse. Serious problems of temporary overproduction can and should be avoided by disseminating information that will discourage the production of more goods (...MD are you the USSR in disguise? ARE you a commie in disguise) than the current markets can possibly absorb or the accumulation of dangerously large inventories for which there is no obvious need. (...MD oh yeah and you are the expert to decide that on behalf of the stupid companies who can't be trusted with freedom right? Oh please do fuck off).
It is, of course, necessary to encourage rises in the level of those competitive prices, such as agricultural prices, which must rise to put our price structure into more workable balance and make the debt burden more tolerable. Many such competitive prices are now too low (....MD hilarious, he's flipped 180 again and now instead of wanting competitive low prices, wants fixed high prices, based on his whims. Seriously I had never truly realised what an arsehole this guy was. Thanks for flagging it to me)
It may at times be necessary to give special treatment (...MD Lefty speak for ignore all the rules we made, because this is for our buddies) to chronically sick industries which have deteriorated too far for natural revival, especially those which have a public or quasi-public character. (...MD bailout for my mates. Man he would have been stealing your money and giving it to the banks like a goodun if he were around today. For the public good of course)
But generally over the field of industry and finance we must revive and strengthen competition (...MD wheeee flip reverse it again) if we wish to preserve and make workable our traditional system of free private enterprise (...MD when he wrote this, do you think he was laughing his nuts off? I do)
The justification of private profit is private risk (MD... errr no, that is just one part of it). We cannot safely make America safe for the businessman who does not want to take the burdens and risks of being a businessman. (...MD in general that about the first thing he's said in a long while that is true, but of course some people are waaaaay better place to take the real big risks that if they pay off, pay off big. He would have a problem with that, I wouldn't).
THE CHOICE BEFORE US
Examination of methods of conducting and controlling private enterprise (....MD ugh, controlling not bad private, but all. A true fascist/commie take your pick.) which keep it from furnishing jobs or income or opportunity for one-third of the population is long overdue on the part of those who sincerely want to preserve the system of private enterprise for profit. (...MD can't decide if he really is serious and delusional, or a genuine double talker).
No people, least of all a democratic people, will be content to go without work (...MD come to Britain I can show you plenty) or to accept some standard of living which obviously and woefully falls short of their capacity to produce (...MD what about the opposite?). No people, least of all a people with our traditions of personal liberty, will endure the slow erosion of opportunity for the common man (...MD oh their tolerance seems pretty impressive to me. Don't overestimate man's capability to lay back and take a raping), the oppressive sense of helplessness under the domination of a few (...MD is he talking about the EU Commission, he's a bloody visionary), which are overshadowing our whole economic life.
A discerning magazine of business has editorially pointed out that big business collectivism in industry compels an ultimate collectivism in government. (...MD only of the State is corruptible, which is blatantly is to the point of being an open goal, but again this isn't one way traffic, this is a symbiotic relationship between big corrupt government and big corrupt corporations and individuals. We have to accept that some humans and organisations they run will ALWAYS be corrupt, what we should not accept, but do and have done forever, is the one entity that really is supposed to be there to uphold law and liberty, a good government, is the absolute first thing that a corrupt fucker will aim for corrupting. For that reason alone, it MUST be limited and small, so that no other corrupt entity can utilise the huge powers a corrupt government will bestow upon itself, with or without the peoples support ).
The power of a few to manage the economic life of the nation must be diffused among the many or be transferred to the public and its democratically responsible government (...MD doing so well until that last bit, where he just pretend government is always a force for good and not subject to the same corruption of any other organisation, only more so due to the unique nature of it's ability to make laws). If prices are to be managed and administered, if the nation's business is to be allotted by plan and not by competition, that power should not be vested in any private group or cartel, however benevolent its professions profess to be (...MD and that you douchebag, includes the fricking government).
Those people, in and out of the halls of government, who encourage the growing restriction of competition either by active efforts or by passive resistance to sincere attempts to change the trend, are shouldering a terrific responsibility. Consciously, or unconsciously, they are working for centralized business (...MD as are the vast majority of corrupt politicians, especially in large centralised organisations, run by unelected officials (see EU) and financial control. Consciously or unconsciously, they are therefore either working for control of the government itself by business and finance or the other alternative- a growing concentration of public power in the government to cope with such concentration of private power.(...MD wow. His trust of politicians and government is touching. It's just such a shame that history has proved him wrong to have that trust almost every single time. The fact he was a US president with that nation's history, is pretty appalling.)
The enforcement of free competition is the least regulation business can expect. (...MD Oxymoron alert)
The traditional approach to the problems I have discussed has been through the anti-trust laws (...MD not bent in favour of your mates I am sure). That approach we do not propose to abandon (MD Quelle Surprise) . On the contrary, although we must recognize the inadequacies of the existing laws, we seek to enforce them so that the public shall not be deprived of such protection as they afford. To enforce them properly requires thorough investigation not only to discover such violations as may exist but to avoid hit-and-miss prosecutions harmful to business and government alike. To provide for the proper and fair enforcement of the existing anti-trust laws I shall submit, through the budget, recommendations for a deficiency appropriation of $200,000 for the Department of Justice (...MD wow, colour me unimpressed more power for your mates against all the lessons of history, way to go).
But the existing anti-trust laws are inadequate-most importantly because of new financial economic conditions with which they are powerless to cope.
The Sherman Act was passed nearly forty years ago. The Clayton and Federal Trade Commission Acts were passed over twenty years ago. We have had considerable experience under those acts. In the meantime we have had a chance to observe the practical operation of large-scale industry and to learn many things about the competitive system which we did not know in those days. (...MD you are such a guru now, you can now control the markets and all for just a large fee. Wanker)
We have witnessed the merging-out of effective competition in many fields of enterprise. We have learned that the so-called competitive system works differently in an industry where there are many independent units, from the way it works in an industry where a few large producers dominate the market. (....MD my God, he's become Einstein, he's learned the secrets of the universe).
We have also learned that a realistic system of business regulation has to reach more than consciously immoral acts. The community is interested in economic results (..MD wow, morality is no longer important, the "Community"(lefist speak for people I agree with) must have their results no matter what). It must be protected from economic as well as moral wrongs. (...MD you are going to have to be a bit more specific than that big boy, I think stealing a workers money is morally and economically wrong, but I suspect you disagree). We must find practical controls over blind economic forces as well as over blindly selfish men. (...MD Give me an F, Give me an A, Give me an S, Give me an C, Give me an I, Give me an S, Give me a T and what have you got?)
Government can deal and should deal with blindly selfish men. But that is a comparatively small part—the easier part-of our problem. (...MD oh how glibly he throws away the freedom of a man who he just happens to thing has earned too much). The larger, more important and more difficult part of our problem is to deal with men who are not selfish and who are good citizens, but who cannot see the social and economic consequences of their actions (...MD Jaw, meet floor. This guys truly thinks he knows how to run your life better, just accept it and do as you are told) in a modern economically interdependent community. They fail to grasp the significance of some of our most vital social and economic problems because they see them only in the light of their own' personal experience (...MD who is John Gault anyway. What Atlas Shrugged based on this guy? This God who proclaims he knows what is best for all men, whether they are good or not?) and not in perspective with the experience of other men and other industries. They, therefore, fail to see these problems for the nation as a whole. (...MD ah the collective is more important than the individual. 1984 is a bible, not a warning. Surrender your individuality at the alter of a collective (as long as it's headed up by him). Did he every sport a small black moustache at any point?)
To meet the situation I have described, there should be a thorough study of the concentration of economic power in American industry and the effect of that concentration upon the decline of competition (..MD yeah good idea, why don't you get a crowd fund together to fund it and get the results out for everyone to consider). There should be an examination of the existing price system and the price policies of industry to determine their effect upon the general level of trade, upon employment, upon long-term profits and upon consumption (...MD same applies). The study should not be confined to the traditional anti-trust field. The effects of tax, patent and other government policies cannot be ignored.(... MD Halekinjulia, finally a chink of light in the dark, that maybe, just maybe big old bad government my be causing a load of the problems. Break open the Champagne).
The study should be comprehensive and adequately financed. I recommend an appropriation of not less than $500,000 for the conduct of such comprehensive study by the Federa