Abraham Lincoln, futurist:

[oboe]

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.... Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

— President Abraham Lincoln, 1864

Reposted with acknowledgements and thanks to mechanic, who posted this quote in a thread in the General Discussion forum.

Coupla interesting historical points - this quote was before the Sherman Antitrust Act and the labor movement, both of which helped delay the fruition of Lincoln's concerns.

Lincoln was a Republican, but that was back when Republicans were the liberals of the day.

[lazs2]

guess he was wrong... it didn't happen.  In fact, the barons of that day and later all died out.  The oil and cattle and land and publishing barons all gone.... and their castles belong to the states.    Now we got microsoft and oprah...

lazs

[oboe]

The railroad tycoons were hard hit, but if you think the oil and steel barons wound up in the poor house you may not have done well in American History.   As far as publishing barons, where do you live, laz?  Have you never heard of William Randolph Hearst?   Or more recently, Rupert Murdoch?

I view Lincoln's warning as an essential truth about government/big business.  I also thought the 'working on the prejudices of the people' line was eerily foretelling, but perhaps that is just the nature of politicians and nothing new there.

[JB88]

mechanic, youve got to stop posting these antiquated political quotes.   you're going to start a riot.

heh heh.

laz, you are right in the sense that they too suffered by thier own uncorruptable mortality.  but i would argue strongly that he was correct in his assumptions about the nature of the beast.

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. "

- dwight d. eisenhower (US president/ former supreme allied commander)

[lazs2]

hearst is gone as is his soley owned empire.  I just took a tour of his former castle.   He don't live there.    murdoch has nowhere near the influence that hearst does.

The real danger has allready passed.  Are you afraid of Bill or oprah?

I am more afraid of billionaire poles who try to influence U.S. policy.

lazs

[lazs2]

oh... and ike was simply wrong.   We needed the buildup during the cold war.   When it was over, the military got gutted by the likes of klinton.    

lazs

[JB88]

perhaps you might review the current average military spending in the united states compared to i dont know...say...education.  

i wouldnt exactly call it "gutted"  

87 billion what?  for whom?  in what year?  raising deficit spending by how much?  for what again?  i forget.

hmmmm.

i would imagine that such stats would be easy to find on the internets.  

but hey, lets say that you are correct. that it didnt and isnt happening...well, i would say that we have been lucky to have insightful and forward thinking presidents in the past.  weve gotten this far.




88

[lazs2]

we allways have a buildup during war and allways have a reduction afterward.   I see nothing to show me any different in this case.

the current weapons systems are more sophisticated and cost 100 times more than WWII say... we have less people but more toys.   I think that is for the best.

I would gladly see us gut the current education and SS systems and go to vouchers for school and investment for retirement.   both of those systems are killing the country.

lazs

[culero]

Lincoln was a war criminal.

culero

[lazs2]

you are mistaken... his side won.

lazs

[JB88]

party line laz.  (sigh)

that said, i have been doing alot of research on the very systems to which you refer in an effort to come to some understanding about my stance on these issues.  

i have yet to decide though i am currently working it out in an essay.  perhaps i will post it when finished.  i am consulting several knowledgable associates on the matter to illuminate me on the nuances of the topic.  for me, it is not a matter of personal economics, for that i have my own ideas and my own means of avoiding the knife, but as a matter of trying to see beneath the wool and into the beating heart of the american wildebeast.

i will say this though, it seems that no closed market fearing
libertarian would actually see these proposals as anything more than the illusion of financial freedom in the smoke of another bank hiest.

for better or for worse.



88

[culero]

Hmmmm...interesting point.

So, he wasn't a criminal because he wasn't prosecuted?

culero

[lazs2]

pretty much culero.

jb..  party line?  what party is that?   I just think that basing everything on a dead presidents (or two) view is pretty silly.   I believe that things are cyclical and I believe that more than a few people have "done research" on the American heart.   Good luck tho.    I would suggest that you don't use mysticism as a basis for your research tho as it has a tendancy to make people look at you funny.

lazs

[JB88]

Originally posted by lazs2


jb..  party line?  what party is that?   I just think that basing everything on a dead presidents (or two) view is pretty silly.   I believe that things are cyclical and I believe that more than a few people have "done research" on the American heart.   Good luck tho.    I would suggest that you don't use mysticism as a basis for your research tho as it has a tendancy to make people look at you funny.

lazs

um.  standard republican party line au currant ... i am an independant though i lean moderate libertarian.  

that i used a presidential quote as a part of my signature, (which accidentally brought about  this discussion) can hardly be considered basing "everything" on dead presidents.   for that you might remind yourself to never quote reagan for fear that you might be misconstrued as "basing everything" on dead presidents.  (oh, and lets rename an airport while we are at it...isnt that a form of ...mysticism?)  

i do agree with you that things are cyclical, thus i used a more modern president to illustrate that our leaders have often warned us that we must keep certain powers in check for the good of our people.

there is a tendancy on message boards to assume that what one says in a post or two is definative of the length of the arguement, thus an immediate latching onto of some detail that might otherwise have been insignificant.

thus a quagmire ensues.  but what i think you are saying, and i often agree with in principle if it is what you are saying, is that things are always painted as being worse than they are and that the nature of the universe has a tendancy to harmonize that which seems larger than the human capacity for goodness.

i think that we can do better than that.  you are obviously intelligent and capable of streching beyond the generalizations here.

that said,

i would remind you that the "cycle" that led to hitler and stalin, pol pot and hussien were also just cyclical buildups in times of war.  

i suppose then, that were i writing about these things in pre war germany or pre vietnam, such considerations with the addition of personal insight might have been considered "mystical" by thier nature.   in germany they would have been considered thought crimes and i might have been executed.

luckilly we are to be americans yes?

you are correct however, they probably will  look at me funny regardless, though i would argue that adding adjectives might qualify as mysticism...but  just to allay any doubts...i will be looking at them funny too.   such things are of no consequence are they?

i mean,  the jocks used to call me studmuffin for wearing an earing.  and yes, i looked at all them funny when they all got them after they were hopelessly out of fashion.  

i am certain that many many many people have, are, and will be writing on the subject.  i happen to be one of them.  not bragging.  just thought you might be interested.   if what i am writing is of no interest to you that is fine.  

i salute you and your horde non the less.

gba.

88

[oboe]

My apologies, JB88, if I incorrectly attributed the quote to mechanic.

Both Presidents were(are) right imo.   Just because the most dire results of their predictions didn't come about doesn't mean they were wrong.