The Ati-thesis , Marxism


"By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[3] Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argues that state capitalism would be the final stage of capitalism consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state.[4]"

Quoted from Wikepedia

Monday, October 24, 2011

Tech Maine Closes as The Maine Institute of Technology Thrives

Recently in the news is the closure of TechMaine


Tech Maine lobbied back in 1998 to bring about the legislative charter of the Maine Technology Institute, a non-profit corporation,which channels funds from the taxpayers and other funds available to non-profits to private sector technology companies. I am not sure why the legislature had to create the L3C to enable small businesses like MOO Milk to get in on foundation money while the same legislature created a non profit corporation to channel tax payer and non-profit funding to private high-tech companies.

MTI's recent annual report shows that it is abundantly financed, and while participating in and lending "support" to the legislaures "targeted sector" and supported network, TechMaine,is not included among those receiving benefits from MTI. One wonders why MTI  does not  give needed support to the lobbying group that contributed so much to it's birth. Speculations arise of political in fighting among the legislatures favored  special interest sector. Did Tech Maine get on the wrong side of the power elite of the power elite? While MTI thrives as per its latest annual report perhaps MTI believes it no longer needs a lobbying group to push forward legislation to benefit the high tech industry. A list of organizations that MTI participates in or "supports"is found in the latest annual report.

The Latest Annual Report for The Maine Technology Institute



The L3C is designed to allow small businesses to get in on foundation grants and so requires that they state that they do not intend to make an "income", but since the legislation also allows that one can change classifications from an L3C at any time, that seems blatantly corrupt from the onset, inviting those who will say what ever they have to say to gain access to foundation capital- which is one reason I find it incredible to believe this new statute would pass muster with the IRS, it's an open invitation to lie in order to gain access to funds and thus morally questionable. If a business doesn't intend to make a "profit" ( the meaning likely intended, when the legislature used the word "income"), it would be structured as a non-profit in the first place, If a business chooses the L3C classification, then there must be an intent to make a profit, which they can make legal at the drop of a hat by switching to an LLC.

Meanwhile the reason for all the interest in high tech, aside from being the obvious direction in which society is headed, is that it seductively promises that big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow- unabashedly motivated by profit and so designed to channel capital to the high profit sector. The two schemes are equally dishonest and each in their own way is structured to claim an intention not to make a profit in order to obtain non-profit funding for the profit sector. The Maine Technology Institute also receives capital funds from the legislature, which of course is funded by the tax payer. I don't know if the promised "pay back" has kicked in yet, but until it has, the only thing the general economy gets for underwriting the special interest economy as mandated by the legislature is the promise that the legislature is "creating jobs" and even those jobs are the ones the legislature wants the people to preform in the service of realizing the vision of the way Maine should be into which the legislature is attempting to transform a once free and independent state.

The legislature sees its job as obtaining and redirecting capital. Capital is the means of production. When the state controls the means of production, its either called Marxism or fascism. If some of the private companies start to make a profit on the people's dime and the people respond by demanding their "fair share", then the fundamental transformation of the Maine and American political philosophy will be a done deal. The state will own and control the means of production and it is unlikely that the profits made by the companies into which the legislature invested the people's money will ever go into the pockets of the people, if there is a "payback" it will go to government just as we see in the Small Enterprise Growth Fund, a state government chartered investment corporation in which the legislature mandates that the public invest 10% of the funds and the public investment always "rolls over" to re-invest in the fund, while the other 90% demand that investments include an "exit strategy" so that the privately invested 90% has a means to realizing a profit- and of course that 90% gets to negotiate its own terms, unlike the people who are collectively represented by the legislature and since the legislature included in the charter that the SEGF would submit its annual report to the legislature, the individual tax payer is going to have to jump through some hoops to find out what deals are being negotiated with the other 90%. and how that compares with the deal being given to the people. And of course the SEGF must invest in companies that serves the "public benefit" as defined in the legislature's "targeted sector", which serves Agenda 21, and that is part and parcel of the federal funds that the corporate state covets from the federal government. So much for state sovereignty and individual rights.

The moral code that condones saying whatever one has to say in order to procure capital funds (or whatever one covets) is mirrored in the Mid-Coast Regional Redevelopment Corporation, which the legislature chartered as a municipal corporation, for no explicable reason other than to get a round Article IV Part Third Section 14 of the Maine State Constitution. while simultaneously defining the MRRA as an "instrumentality of the state" which is the true intention. The two terms are legally mutually exclusive. The legislature is constitutionally prohibited from forming corporations by special acts of legislation with an exception for municipal corporations which are locally governed and cannot charter themselves as they need to have a seat of government to achieve that end and so there has to be an exception for municipal corporations in the constitution - but once chartered the constitution grants the right to amend the charter to "the inhabitants of the municipality".
Also recently in the news is that  Kesrel may not create those 300 jobs at the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment center after all. The federal money is not materializing for the project. Could it be that the legally challenged charter that the Maine state legislature concocted in order to manifest their brave new city state is finally catching up to reality?


This page links to notes that I compiled on The Maine Institute of technology a while back and contains substantiation for claims made herein.


The Latest Annual Report for The Maine Technology Institute

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

A Question For Herman Cain- Would the 999 plan work better as a 99 Plan ?

I like Herman Cain but I have some questions that I would like to see him answer.

The 999 plan is not about numbers- it is about percentages- which result in numbers and so if you take one of the percentages out of the equation,it does not necessarily result in a lower federal revenue number- and so I raise the question- why do we need three elements to this equation?

Is there a point to the national federal sales tax other than to tax those who are not making an income- the unemployed, the disabled, and those living on a fixed retirement amount - and to "tax the rich" more than others. Other than that, the sales tax is levied on the same sectors as those taxed by the other 2 nines.

The sales tax lowers the value of the dollar as the cost of consumer goods is increased by 9%. The sales tax 9% will potentially lower business profits by raising costs of wholesale purchases resulting from an increase in the cost of freight- and by decreasing consumer spending power. Business profits generate the number on which the 9% business tax is calculated. If the business pays the employee more to compensate for the inflated cost of almost everything caused by 9% sales tax- the number used to calculate personal income tax increases by the same amount that that number used to calculate business tax decreases. This is true with or without the 9% sales tax.

Without the 9% sales tax, all dollars retain their spending value. Since business no longer have to pay a tax calculated on the number of employees and wages paid to those employees, businesses have more capital for hiring new employees and that decreases the number of unemployed who then increase the number who pay a 9% tax personal income tax. It still leaves other unemployed people not paying a tax but a good portion of those people are retired or disabled. What is the reason for taxing the resources of these people especially when it might slow down job creation by reducing the spending power of those individuals and thus keep more people in the unemployed segment?

The "999" slogan rings like equality for all, but the federal sales tax conceals a "tax the rich" ideology when the guiding ideology should be job creation. The federal sales tax could potentially result in less consumer spending and therefore fewer jobs.

While the 9% business tax eliminates the unfair advantage of businesses that hire under the table- the federal sales tax re-introduces the unfair advantage for system beaters with the likelihood that a non-taxable under ground market for consumer goods will develop or expand under this system and compete with consumer goods that are sold by businesses that play by the rules. This will create the need for a government bureaucracy designed to catch the cheaters and funded by the taxpayer.

A national federal sales tax creates competition between the federal government and the states. Will some states have to lower their state sales tax in order to compete? If the federal government decides to raise or lower the federal sales tax- that impacts the sales taxing policies of all the state governments. I do not think that is a good thing for state sovereignty.

A 99 plan combined with a more specific federal plan for reducing federal spending than Cain has thus far offered could be streamlined for job creation without a hidden class warfare ideology.

This still leaves other questions unanswered such as the financing of social security and for constitutional purists there still remains the issue of the constitutionality of income tax. In this election candidates should have a long term plan for realigning this nation with the constitutional model created by our framers- or to say why they do not believe in that model.

Friday, October 7, 2011

The Advent of The Occupiers.

The occupiers have arrived in Maine, complete with their tent city which has all the markings of having been manufactured by corporations with productions abroad and distributors that sell to other corporations located in this country.

The Occupiers have their own legal adviser, John H. Branson, who has negotiated a one week permit to occupy a space in the city of Portland for a week. This makes the Occupiers markedly more professional than the Tea Party who would most likely use a Tea Party volunteer to obtain any necessary permits. Does the Occupier’s legal adviser work on a volunteer basis? If not who pays for John H. Branson's services?

The occupiers identify their actions as inspired by the protestors in the "Arab Spring" with "Arab Spring" being yet another media concoction that suggests the motivations and outcome of events in the Middle East are the subject of media fairy tales. The one thing that we do know about the events in the Middle East is that the end game of the protestors was clearly defined- the ousting of the dictators in the various nations. Who knows what "democracy" means after that? In Palestine it meant electing Hamas as the controlling political power.

The occupiers repeat media generated lexicon, such as "the Arab Spring" and channel politically generated mantras such as "fair share", both of which, like "hope and change" are murky terms that are wide open for interpretation by anyone anywhere.

The occupiers are here for an indefinite time until the indefinite goal of "change" is achieved. Well buddies you can leave now because change is the only constant. Other than "change" there does not seem to be any specific measure to signal that the occupiers have achieved their goals. They don't seem to get that the ones they emulate, the Arab protestors had a specific and measurable goal- to over throw a dictator. If the Arab spring is romanticized as a "democratic" revolution, once the dictator has been disposed the great challenge of forming a constitutional democracy becomes the new goal. If it is a pure democracy, it can mean the tyranny of the majority and if that majority is the Muslim Brotherhood, it doesn't make for a good fairy tale ending.

Meanwhile we already have a constitutional democratic republic. We already have a system, which like all systems works as well as the character of the people. Our system was designed, with the vast range of human character in mind, as a system of checks and balances. It is the fact that we already have a constitutional system that protects the rights of assembly and freedom of speech which makes the occupiers right to be heard a fact. What the occupiers don't like is that our constitutional system is based in a political philosophy that protects property rights and the right to the fruits of ones own labor.

Whenever I hear "fair share" I wonder why it isn't applied to government? Why does government sector have a right to spend the wealth that others create? I think government is well over its "fair share" already. But the concept that 'fair share" can be applied to the government sector is completely occluded from the meaning of this politically generated mantra straight from the Obama team, trying to repeat the great success of the "hope and change" mantra.

Now that the unions have joined with the occupiers in NYC, it just won't be complete until the government employees embrace it as well. More and better government pension plans!