Economist Warns The Liberal's Socialist Utopia Is Creating Civil Unrest Everywhere "This Won't End Pretty" " (Representatives, enemy)

[gretsky99]

Socialism eventually=chaos=destruction=death

Martin Armstrong Warns Civil Unrest Is Rising Everywhere: "This Won't End Pretty" | Zero Hedge

[Rambler123]

The author is both completely right and completely wrong.

For example, he correctly pins blame on the banks:

"The exploitation by the bankers has been really a disaster. They have been their own worst enemy and in the end, they have become the symbol that inspires class warfare if not revolution. They are not the representatives of those who produce jobs. They are merely those who wanted to trade with other people’s money for free. When they win, it is their’s, but any losses are passed to the taxpayers. Bankers should be bankers – not hedge fund managers who keep 100% of the profits using other people’s savings."

Except bankers buying up government officials and then looting the public treasury at the taxpayer's expense is not "socialism." Heck, it's not even capitalism! In reality, it's a form of "crony capitalism," or just a plutocracy.

Then, after continuing to correctly discuss the repeal of Glass-Steagall, he wanders off to rant about the Euro, and then goes full circle with this nutty conclusion:

'This is not going to end pretty. The question is when does society wake up? Just how high will this price be that we have to pay? They will blame the rich and the idiots will cheer – get them. What will happen when there is no more wealth to hunt? We end up with a communist state by default – no wealth, just career politicians who blame everyone but themselves."

So, now wait a minute - he's claiming that those who blame the rich are "idiots" when he JUST BLAMED THEM earlier in the same article for looting our economy, destroying jobs, and buying up our leaders?!

THAT is why people are angry at the rich - they aren't mad because Joe Billionaire has tons of money, but that he's been using that money to buy up leaders, get laws revoked or changed so he can make more money at the expense of the working class, and then pass any losses he creates onto the taxpayer while keeping all the profits.

So, in short, the writer of that article has some examples of the problem, but is utterly unable to form a proper conclusion:

1) What we are seeing is not "socialism" but "crony capitalism" - they have nothing in common.

2) People who blame the rich aren't "idiots," particularly when in the same article accusing them of "idiocy," you list a pile of nasty things done by the rich that helped gut our economy while making them tons of money at our expense.

[petch751]

The poor will think this is for their benefit just like they thought Obama was. They again will be wrong. And didn't Obama say he would end crony capitalism when he was campaigning? I guess he lied about that too. Everyone has a price and obviously they met Obama's price.