Capitalism and Firefly by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I think that you are confusing what capitalism was to what capitalism has lead the US economy to be. To use your analogy, the current US economy is designed to keep the number of 'kings' static at best (actually many sectors are getting less and less 'kings') and crush the 'princes'/'lords'/etc.

Yeah, and I'm one of the many peasants...
Pie in the sky aside, the corporations are gonna have to fall due to their own selfishness before any effective change can be made, they are in bed so deep w/the government that they are (defacto) our rulers. And speaking of bed, at this end, we peasants don't even get kissed before we get

ed by them.

We've got to rise up! The only thing that counts in the end is power! Naked, merciless force!!!
Who's with me???

*pant, pant* Okay. I'm calmer now.

Maybe we could try a bartering system? Like; I give you a knuckle sandwich, and you give me the $3 comic?
Naw, it doesn't work for comics any better than it does for oil, CAN'T BUSH SEE THAT???!!!!

*pant, pant, pant*

I have to take a break from this...

BP 201/99 Chrisisall

P.S., you have a mug full of guns?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2005 9:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Isn't taking advantage of the the fact that they can "borrow the massive power of the government to do there bidding", being amoral?

No doubt about it. So if you take away the gov'ts massive power, the amoral business people are pretty much stuck trying to sell a $3 comic for $20, instead of using gov't force to corner a market for themselves.

Quote:
You said, "Or do we SEPARATE THE TWO ENTIRELY and force business to get the money they want by pleasing their customers".

Are you so naive that you think that this will happen? Corps will always bleed there customers for as much as they can get. Corps are about making money, and nothing in there recent (and even not so recent, distant) history has suggested that they are willing to sacrific profits for customer satisfaction.

I never said they would sacrifice profits, and of course they're out to make money - isn't that why you work too? A business will have to fill its customer's needs on some level at some point. How long would McDonalds last if they suddenly served up the cheaper "raw soy burger" with the ad line, "We're a big corporation, screw you!"

Quote:
I think that you are confusing what capitalism was to what capitalism has lead the US economy to be.

I think you may be confused about what capitalism is in the first place. It can't be one thing "then" and another thing "now". Capitalism is the economic philosophy that markets should be free and unencumbered by gov't interference. That was the definition 150 years ago, and that's it today. To expand on what I said in my earlier post, what we have today is severely limited capitalism at best. 150 years ago we had nearly pure capitalism. The wealth and well being of Americans and the size and scope of corporate corruption are directly linked to the amount of gov't meddling in free markets. The more meddling we get (as in today), the former decreases and the latter increases.

There's just no getting around the fact that the free-est markets ever (America in the early 19th cent - early 20th) ushered in the greatest boom of wealth, health, standard of living, and technology for the COMMON MAN all over the world.

How can that not be a good thing?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 11:30 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

No doubt about it. So if you take away the gov'ts massive power, the amoral business people are pretty much stuck trying to sell a $3 comic for $20, instead of using gov't force to corner a market for themselves.

Um, what?

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

I never said they would sacrifice profits, and of course they're out to make money - isn't that why you work too? A business will have to fill its customer's needs on some level at some point. How long would McDonalds last if they suddenly served up the cheaper "raw soy burger" with the ad line, "We're a big corporation, screw you!"

To better service customer, you have to increase cost and therefore sacrific profits.

And no, I don't work to earn money, I work to live. There is a massive difference between the two.

Also, these corps do satisfy the customers needs when selling the customer whatever product it is that they sell. The problem is, shitty product, poor warrantee, price, etc.

What these corps do is not to think of what would be the best price for the consumer, but what would maximize there profit, and

the customer. What is the maximum amount of crap that the customer will put up with without switching products (ie M$ is very well known for this type of tactic).

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

I think you may be confused about what capitalism is in the first place. It can't be one thing "then" and another thing "now". Capitalism is the economic philosophy that markets should be free and unencumbered by gov't interference. That was the definition 150 years ago, and that's it today. To expand on what I said in my earlier post, what we have today is severely limited capitalism at best. 150 years ago we had nearly pure capitalism. The wealth and well being of Americans and the size and scope of corporate corruption are directly linked to the amount of gov't meddling in free markets. The more meddling we get (as in today), the former decreases and the latter increases.

Fine, you've caught me in a misnomer. Is it so wrong to assume that even if I'm using a word improperly that the rest of my numerous posts will provide context so that people know what I'm talking about.

Clearly from context, I'm not really talking about the theory of pure capatilism, but the implementation in the US then and now. Does that explicit statment clear that up for you?

And how

'd up the system is now isn't due to government envolvment (though it plays a role at a certain level), but that it is the corps manipulating things through the government; it begins and ends with the corps involvment.

It's that, the more meddling that happens (ie bribes) the more screwed up things get. Also, the US has a long history of not prosecuting such crimes. This is the real problem (Martha Stewart anyone? She got nailed yet all others involved got off with at most a slap on the wrist. Fair? Just? I think not.).

I find it fasinating that people in the US have such a fixation with government not interfering with there lives that everything that the gov is involved in is entirely there fault; everyone else involved, regardless of how deep, are pretty much ignored.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

There's just no getting around the fact that the free-est markets ever (America in the early 19th cent - early 20th) ushered in the greatest boom of wealth, health, standard of living, and technology for the COMMON MAN all over the world.

How can that not be a good thing?

Um, I actually stated that this was a good thing above. But, with the current state of things, with where this system has lead the US, it has turned into a very bad thing. That is indisputable. Walmart anyone? How many people don't have any sort of health insurance in the US right now? What's the unemployment? Where's the economy going? Oh yah, it's basically all in the crapper.

Also, I believe it was you that stated above that the US system and the EU systems are basically the same. Well, I mentioned that to my German wife. Her response what, LOL, that's nonsense.

In fact, the EU has a strong Socialist mentality. to even think that the US and EU systems are even remotely similiar...

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
To better service customer, you have to increase cost and therefore sacrific profits.

Why? I run my own business, my best friend runs one, so does my father. Between the three of us we’ve probably thought up a thousand ways to improve customer satisfaction without raising costs – that’s how you stay in business.

Quote:
And no, I don't work to earn money, I work to live. There is a massive difference between the two.

So you’d be just as happy to receive your pay in clothes and food? “Money” isn’t a dirty word and you can want it and still be a good person.

Quote:
What these corps do is not to think of what would be the best price for the consumer, but what would maximize there profit, and the customer.

Every business (including big corporations) MUST consider what the best price for the customer is, or they won’t HAVE any customers. This is business 101. Do you think any business in a real capitalist economy would last a month if their game plane was to, as you say, “maximize profit and

the customer”?

Quote:
And how 'd up the system is now isn't due to government envolvment (though it plays a role at a certain level), but that it is the corps manipulating things through the government; it begins and ends with the corps involvment.

Nobody likes corps manipulating laws to their favor. But why just treat the symptom when you could treat the disease? Why make things harder for all business (regardless if they are immoral or not) with immense regulation and taxes, when you could take away the the power that corrupts in the first place? Reduce gov’t power and influence so no one can take advantage of it!

Quote:
How many people don't have any sort of health insurance in the US right now? What's the unemployment? Where's the economy going? Oh yah, it's basically all in the crapper.

The economy is doing fine compared to the last 10-15 years. It’s not doing great compared to the growth we saw for the first ¾ of the 20th century, but guess what else has changed in that time? More regulations, more taxes, more restrictions. More reasons for large corps to influence the gov’t.

Quote:
Also, I believe it was you that stated above that the US system and the EU systems are basically the same. Well, I mentioned that to my German wife. Her response what, LOL, that's nonsense...

I didn’t say they were the same, I said U.S. businesses face almost as much regulation and taxes (nowadays, that is).

I’m going to take a wild guess and say you’re Canadian. I’ve heard the same arguments almost word for word from half a dozen other Canadians. Once, I asked a former Canadian friend of mine how it could be so consistent between people from different areas, of different ages, etc.. He said they teach the socialist ideal up there like it was handed down from God. Maybe you could confirm or deny. Unless, of course, I got it wrong and you’re not from Canada.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 5:08 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

Why? I run my own business, my best friend runs one, so does my father. Between the three of us we’ve probably thought up a thousand ways to improve customer satisfaction without raising costs – that’s how you stay in business.

I'm talking about big business. May I assume that you have a small business?

To get better customer satisfaction you would have to have more staff (increased cost) and/or update there knowledge from time to time (increased cost) and/or... Just about everything that can be done results in increased cost.

Basically, if you want happier customers, you increase your cost.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

Quote:
And no, I don't work to earn money, I work to live. There is a massive difference between the two.
So you’d be just as happy to receive your pay in clothes and food? “Money” isn’t a dirty word and you can want it and still be a good person.

Um, pardon me, but where are you getting this? I said no such thing. You are letting your assumptions get away on you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

Do you think any business in a real capitalist economy would last a month if their game plane was to, as you say, “maximize profit and the customer”?

Considering that is what's going on in the US right now (and for some time) in all the corps, I'd say yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

Nobody likes corps manipulating laws to their favor. But why just treat the symptom when you could treat the disease? Why make things harder for all business (regardless if they are immoral or not) with immense regulation and taxes, when you could take away the the power that corrupts in the first place? Reduce gov’t power and influence so no one can take advantage of it!
...
The economy is doing fine compared to the last 10-15 years. It’s not doing great compared to the growth we saw for the first ¾ of the 20th century, but guess what else has changed in that time? More regulations, more taxes, more restrictions. More reasons for large corps to influence the gov’t.
...
I didn’t say they were the same, I said U.S. businesses face almost as much regulation and taxes (nowadays, that is).

Actually, they pay far higher taxes and are far more regulated. Just because the people who make the regulations in the US are doing there jobs with utter incompetence (and/or being corrupt), doesn't mean that it can't be done propery, nor does it mean that the government has to be taken out of the picture (or out of the pic entirely).

Basically what you're suggesting to do, is like solving the problem with an atom bomb. The perceived problem is solved, but you still end up with chaos.

By the by, this article mentions that the US economy isn't actually doing that well. Read, learn. Extremes never work.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366944,00.html

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:

I’m going to take a wild guess and say you’re Canadian. I’ve heard the same arguments almost word for word from half a dozen other Canadians. Once, I asked a former Canadian friend of mine how it could be so consistent between people from different areas, of different ages, etc.. He said they teach the socialist ideal up there like it was handed down from God. Maybe you could confirm or deny. Unless, of course, I got it wrong and you’re not from Canada.

Considering I state in my online profile that I am Canadian, I'd say that you don't have to assume anything.

But no, they don't teach the socialist ideal like it is handed down by god. In fact, our economy is not socialist. It is a hybrid between capatilism and socialism. We've tried to get the benifit of both without the draw backs. So, who ever you've talked to - this so called Canadian - they don't know what they're talking about.

Basically what it comes down to is conflicting priorities. We want universial health care. We want people to be taken care of. We want a "social net" if you will. We are willing to pay higher taxes to get it. We are willing to have some government involvement to get it.

These are important things for us to have.

The US on the otherhand, does not seem to want universial health care. The US does not seem to want the state to take care of people. The US does not seem to want a "social net." The US doesn't seem willing to pay higher taxes to get it. The US does not seem to want government involvement.

These are your priorities; you don't want them.

The problem is that the people from the US seem to see us Canadians fighting to not have a US system and think that it is just some typical anti-american stuff going on.

The truth is that we've seen where certain things have lead the US and that is a place where we don't want to go. I know, as hard as it may sound, there is an entire country, right next door, that has such different priorities that we don't want what you want.

This is what must be understood.

I'm also curious to know, why the US is still hanging onto this fantasy that capatilism actually works in the long run. Time and time again, it has been shown that it doesn't work for the same reason why communism doesn't work. They assume that the people will be knowledgeable and act; the assumption is that human nature is idealistic. Fallacy.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 5:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As best I can tell, you think that everything good comes from business, even international, corporate, monopolistic business, which (at the same time) you think needs to be divorced from government, which is itself a burden to small business but a ....

It's a little off-topic, but can you explain exactly what it is you believe?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I'm also curious to know, why the US is still hanging onto this fantasy that capatilism actually works in the long run.

Capitalism works in the short run, and most of the wealthy will be dead before it all falls. Heroine addicts have a similar rationale, I suspect.

Dark Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Basically what it comes down to is conflicting priorities.

True. I want to be free and you want to be taken care of. That's it in a (very small) nut shell. It's boiled down to this point in so many discussions like this with people born into different economic cultures, that I don't know why I keep trying to convince them (especially on message boards - in person these debates are so much more interesting).

Anyway, I know these online debates can turn ugly, and emotional intent isn't always easy to show, so good talking to you. I can honestly say I learned something (although I don't promise it's what you intended).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
I want to be free and you want to be taken care of. That's it in a (very small) nut shell.

I think that's oversimplifying just a bit...

Can't we all get along Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As best I can tell, you think that everything good comes from business, even international, corporate, monopolistic business, which (at the same time) you think needs to be divorced from government, which is itself a burden to small business but a ....

It's a little off-topic, but can you explain exactly what it is you believe?

I think people should be free to do as they wish with their money, and since businesses ARE people that includes them.

I think the legal fiction that corporations are individuals is disgusting. The legal protection that government gives to large corporations is disgusting. If you want to organize your business into a corporation, go ahead, but you shouldn't be allowed any more protection from your stupidity or misbehavior than joe schmoe shop keeper.

I just want to be left alone! I don't want to be financially responsible for people I'll never meet and I don't want them to be responsibole for me. I don't want to be a part of some politician's grand plan for the future.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
I want to be free and you want to be taken care of. That's it in a (very small) nut shell.
I think that's oversimplifying just a bit...

Like I said, "very small" nutshell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 4:18 AM

Um, aren't you overnutshelling it just a bit...?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 9:21 AM

“The guiding principle of capitalism is customer satisfaction.”

Satisfaction is totally subjective and therefore subject to enormous manipulation. Satisfying your customer with an illusion is a lot cheaper than giving the customer the real deal. Long as you don’t get caught. If you can bump the price of a comic book to $20 and convince the customer that the book is scarce, everybody wins, right?

If customer satisfaction is your goal, then the ultimate strategy is to control what customers find satisfying. Pretty smart, eh? You know, mind control, aka marketing and advertising.

Or drugs. If there was no such thing as addiction, I think I’d feel a lot better about capitalism than I do. I spent a lot of my life tied up in the food service industry and the real money there, as anyone will tell you, is in the addictive substances, booz and espresso and sugar and grease. The free market loves addiction. And what is greed if not an addiction to money? And so, the free market loves greed, because there’s a lot of profit to be made off the greedy. You think you’ll make more money selling Hyundais or Porsches? Selling to the greedy and wealthy will always net you better profits than selling to the poor and frugal. Always. And because greed is addictive, instead of just exploiting the greedy, you too become greedy. When an entire culture is addicted to money, you get Reaganomics.

Our consumer culture has even developed an addiction to shopping itself. People call it “retail therapy” and live out their lives in debt.

Capitalism works best in an homogenous community. That’s where you will find that holy grail of capitalist belief, a fair market price. Anywhere else, not so much. Cultural differences breed deception and exploitation. Granted, in some perfect fantasy of utopian capitalism, diversity helps to drive real competition and stimulates all kinds of growth; but as soon as one faction gets the upper hand they will move to consolidate their control of the market and the minorities will be exploited. The most exploited cultural difference in any market is poverty. Poor people, who have to work a lot of hours and maybe don’t have their own car, don’t have the time to go all over town checking for the best price, and are more likely to buy what you’re selling at the price you set. What is convenience for the affluent is mere survival to the poor.

Animals, trees, the natural world, they don’t buy anything, so capitalism doesn’t care if they’re farmed to extinction, clear-cut or strip mined. Capitalism always looks good in the short run, and the United States hasn’t been around long enough to know anything longer than the short run. No more whale oil? We find something new! No more petroleum? Find something knew! The Earth get used up? Hey, that reminds me, there was this great show...

A major reason why capitalism worked so well in the 19th and early 20th centuries (aside from the fact that there was no end to the boom and bust of short-run economies that fueled it) is because back then the big boys (Carnegie et al) were always trying to impress old money with their philanthropy. There were very, very rich people they wanted to get cozy with that thought full-on capitalist acquisitiveness just wasn’t cool. Back then, greed wasn’t good, it was shameful. So they built hospitals and schools to show what decent guys they were. Nowadays, there’s no money in philanthropy.

If ridding the world of its ills were profitable, somebody would have done it by now and retired a rich man.

Look at mass-market TV if you want to see what the natural pressures of a free market will get you. Look at the news. People don’t want to buy what’s good for them or what lasts or even what is true. They want to feel satisfied, and TV delivers every time.

Socialism is never gonna capture the hearts and minds of consumers, it’s just not marketable enough to catch on without being forced. So, until the human race grows up and actually wants what’s good for them, we’re likely to be stuck with capitalism. I just pray that we can find and set some healthy limits before the Earth that is becomes was.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 1:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The Earth get used up? Hey, that reminds me, there was this great show...

Didn't see that one coming...
Besides being hi-larious, you thoughts are, as ever, spot on.

Cheers Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 3, 2005 5:32 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
it’s just not marketable enough

Part of why international corporate capitalism survives is that people are taught all sorts of nonsense, and it forms an unquestioned basis for their perceptions, thinking, and choices.

One bit of silliness is that the US is the best of all possible worlds. People seem to be able to imagine worse societies, but not better ones. (Or, better ones that are palatable. Just look at Start Trek - TNG. Didn’t it all seem just a little thin and lacking in zest?) I think you have to live a fair bit of time in another country with a better standard of living to be able to grasp the reality of a better society. Not utopia, but perceptibly better. But that's an experience most Americans will never have.

Another is that somehow capitalism is 'natural', according to some blurry definition. Usually it's predicated on it being 'human nature'. And when pressed for some basis, what I've heard is either that all previous societies were imperfect until people to evolved up to capitalism, or that all previous societies were essentially capitalistic, or that evolution is essentially competitive and therefore capitalistic, or some other nonsense.

Between the two of these it becomes literally unthinkable that capitalism is a free choice.

And being a free choice, it can be altered or discarded when it ceases to make life good.

Anyway, I can posit, I think, a society where people are truly free. And free of poverty, insecurity, hopelessness, suspicion, and hate, and where the earth will be beautiful, abundant and clean at the hands of man. And I think I can do it with just one non-religious precept. (One of a handful of ideas that did not directly come from someone else, as far as I know.)

If you had to come up with a different rule to live by, what would it be?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 4, 2005 11:52 AM

As a child having our economy explained to me, I had the odd feeling the adults were joking. Me and my friends traded stuff we wanted, or did each other's chores in return for borrowing things, etc. Money was a strange adult concept that only made sense when my dad gave me my weekly allowance so that I could give it to the drug store guy for a comic book.

I long for the economic world Jean-Luc describes in First Contact.

Jabba no barter Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2005 11:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey, thanks for the reply. I don't get to the site every day, and if topics get too far down the list, I sometimes lose track.

I too remember my childish confusion over the complicated world of jobs and money and banks.

Rue

If you are wondering what the single precept is, it is "just enough".

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2005 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you are wondering what the single precept is, it is "just enough".

I would agree with you on that, but I don't think it would sit too well with at least 10% of the U.S. population

.
Seeing sci-fi movies as a kid, I would have thought by now we would have 'evolved beyond' greed and hate, I guess it's in the genome...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 6, 2005 7:10 PM

This topic reminds me of an inner conflict I've never really been able to resolve. Despite my enthusiasm for laissez-faire economics, I actually find money tedious and annoying. In fact, I'm a downright crummy capitalist. I like to tell myself that's due to my impatience with all the regulatory and bureaucratic baggage that our current version of capitalism carries with it. But I can't be totally sure of that.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2005 2:03 PM

I would accept that label for myself, too.
Want to start a 'crummy capitalist's anymous' thread?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2005 7:14 PM

PERFESSERGEE

One of the issues that I haven't yet seen addressed on this thread is that of information assymetries. A number of modern economists have spent a great deal of time thinking and writing about this. A basic assumption of market capitalism is that all actors in the market have equivalent and current information. Assymetries among the actors can grotesquely distort markets, and allow those with superior information to basically ream everybody else. This is why insider trading in the stock market is prohibited. The Enron debacle is a great example of how the greedy can use information asymmetries to pillage those not in the know (which in that case included many of their own employees - may Ken Lay and his buddies spend a whole lot of time in the Special Hell).

And, of course, information can not only be manipulated, but there can be very powerful incentives for so doing.

To me, the US economic system looks a lot more like a gigantic information manipulation free-for-all than anything approaching honest capitalism (can you say "advertising", "media conglomerates" and "political spinmeisters?).

Capitalism is for wusses in comparison........

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2005 9:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It's always a pleasure to read informative posts.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2005 9:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM and I were discussing this off-line. He (she?) is interested in the process of modern capitalism, and looking for the equivalent of a model that describes its functions.

If I inderstood correctly, one thing he mentioned was: why is modern capitalism so successful at spawning more capitalism?

Is it a matter of technology and the consequent multiplication of human productivity (capitalistic countries tend to be the most technologically advanced - not necessarily cause and effect). Is it the accumulative nature of capitalism? (concentration of wealth that may lead to investment in large-scale operations w/ economies of scale; or that leads to control of government that favors capitalists). And questions of this nature.

--------------

SgtX: I find one of the frutrating things about capitalism (aside from living life in a cage over which I have no control) is the abstract nature of life-sustaining work. One does 'stuff' and gets a 'check' which stands for 'money' which can be used to finally get the things by which one lives. Maybe that's why so many people yearn for an agrarian past. You get the stuff of life directly with your own two hands.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2005 9:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
To me, the US economic system looks a lot more like a gigantic information manipulation free-for-all than anything approaching honest capitalism (can you say "advertising", "media conglomerates" and "political spinmeisters?).

Absomalutely. This is definitely something that needs to be explored. I think the same kind of manipulation is having it's way with democracy as well. Free markets and democratic rule both rely on an informed, prudent population to function well. But once you can keep people in the dark...

As a relatively petty example, take cell phones. I refuse to use one because of the deceptive, manipulative pricing schemes they use. It would be a trivial matter to have a little ticker on the screen of your cell phone showing exactly what your bill was at any given moment, or exactly what a call would cost you when you enter the number. But they very deliberately avoid that, introducing complex shell games for billing plans. Why do people line up for this kind of garbage?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2005 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SgtX: I find one of the frutrating things about capitalism (aside from living life in a cage over which I have no control) is the abstract nature of life-sustaining work. One does 'stuff' and gets a 'check' which stands for 'money' which can be used to finally get the things by which one lives. Maybe that's why so many people yearn for an agrarian past. You get the stuff of life directly with your own two hands.

Great point! I've often yearned for a lifestyle where I directly utilized the fruits of my labor. It must be incredibly satisfying to build your own house, for example. And I'm not talking about hiring a contractor and taking out loans all the modern hocus pocus, but by cutting down trees, designing the layout, laying the foundation. It's so seldom we see direct results like that.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2005 9:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
rue:
If you are wondering what the single precept is, it is "just enough".
Chrisisall:
I would agree with you on that, but I don't think it would sit too well with at least 10% of the U.S. population.
Seeing sci-fi movies as a kid, I would have thought by now we would have 'evolved beyond' greed and hate, I guess it's in the genome...

If 90% didn't recognize the 'right' of the 10% who want to take everything, could the 10% keep their preferred system going?
I work with someone who used to stick his nose in the air and declare - it's human nature to be (greedy, brutal, power-hungry). But if that's true, what about the 99% of humans who aren't? (globally) Are they not human?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2005 10:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I work with someone who used to stick his nose in the air and declare - it's human nature to be (greedy, brutal, power-hungry). But if that's true, what about the 99% of humans who aren't? (globally) Are they not human?

Gawd, that does get old. It's fine and dandy to defend rationale self-interest, but these people who read half of Atlas Shrugged and start prancing around bragging about what greedy pricks they are. ARRRHGGHH

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2005 8:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SgtX

But, notice I said used to ! He doesn't say that where I can hear it anymore.

OOC, can anyone take up the economics discussion with SignyM? Not only are the answers beyond me, the questions are as well. They seem to approach economics a little bit like thermodynamics and a little bit like the (new) science of mathematically modeling evolution.

I think it would take someone knowledgeable to carry on.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2005 8:59 AM

SergeantX, I always suspected that you were a dirty context-dropping, tribalist, mediocritarian, paradox-monger! How dare you question the Power and the Glory that is Rand? Check your premises! (Sorry, just had my own run-in with the Cult of Ayn, hadda get that out of my system

)

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Free markets and democratic rule both rely on an informed, prudent population to function well. But once you can keep people in the dark...

I was hoping you would respond more directly to my earlier post. I was thinking of you as I wrote it because you are reasonable, compassionate AND a close-up friend of capitalism, and those three in one man is a rare combination in my experience.

It's amazing to me that people can think of capitalism and "an informed, prudent population" in the same breath. Capitalism and deception are inseparable in my mind. Have you ever worked in sales? You have at least been subject to one or two sales pitches in your life. Capitalism has always been about convincing the buyer that he or she needs whatever you're selling. Capitalists traffic mainly in desire. The logical conclusion of such a system is mind control and addiction. Trying to keep a consumer "informed and prudent" in a capitalist system is like trying to keep a drunk sober by boarding him at a saloon.

Democracy fares a little better with the human race because, for most of us, it's a purely amateur venture. The population only has to be "informed and prudent" once or twice a year. I think most of us can handle that. Of course politicians are the "professionals" in a capitalist democracy, so they tend to get pretty warped. The best thing our democracy has going for it right now, to my mind, is term limits. Keeps the power from totally stagnating in one faction for long (hope, hope).

Capitalism needs limits too. Who was it, Thomas Payne? who proposed at the framing of the constitution that corporations should be limited to a term of 8 years at which point they'd have to be liquidated? Back in the day, "Liberal Government" seemed to be the answer to the problem; limit capitalism in the name of the poor, the environment and the unlucky.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2005 9:18 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi HK,
Just a short quip

Quote:
Capitalism has always been about convincing the buyer that he or she needs whatever you're selling.

As my BIL says, if that stuff is so good, why are they trying to exchange it for your money?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2005 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But if that's true, what about the 99% of humans who aren't? (globally) Are they not human?

I can't speak for other countries, but I've worked with the public here in the States most of my life, and that 99% seems a mite high to me

In a Buddist way I have to acknowledge that there is no bad I've wittnessed in others that hasn't had it's time in me, too; I just wish more people would spend more time trying to let go of crappy baggage, instead of trying to hold onto, and justify their posession of it.

*Hey, where's my capitalist greed?!? Whadda you mean it got put on the wrong plane???
I knew I shoulda carried it on....*

If a tree falls on Chrisisall, can he make money sueing the forest?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 3:48 AM

somewhat related to the topic of Firefly, and systems of Government, is this link to a libertarians support of our BDTV show (I know we have a lot of libertarians at this website):
http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/020132.php
I thought you guys would find it interesting.

And regarding humans 'evolving' past greed...
please.
We've made no headway in the LAST 500 years
(or in the last 3000 years)
so I hardly think we can expect to be over it in the next 500 years.
Particularly in the USA where we use up most of the world's resources in our selfish pursuit of our 'life-style',
we can hardly pretend there is anyone here who isn't pretty greedy.

Join my crew: Fairfield Fireflies
http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/index.html?fuseaction=gro
ups.main&searchby=F

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 6:15 AM

That was a great link, thanks, embers!
It also reminded my why The Undescovered Country and Insurrection are my favourite Trek flicks; The Federation is portrayed as being falable, not the benevolant and perfect entity it is most of the time.

Socio-economical Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 8:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
And regarding humans 'evolving' past greed...
please.
We've made no headway in the LAST 500 years
(or in the last 3000 years)
so I hardly think we can expect to be over it in the next 500 years.
Particularly in the USA where we use up most of the world's resources in our selfish pursuit of our 'life-style',
we can hardly pretend there is anyone here who isn't pretty greedy.

Wha-huh? I know all kinds of people who aren't particularly greedy at all. Myself for instance. What are you talking about?

And individuals "evolve" out of addictions every day, arguably more in the United States than anywhere else on the planet, ironically. Alcoholism used to be nothing but a big joke on prime time television, now corporations pay for their employees' rehab. Fat people used to be nothing but funny. Smoking used to be nothing but cool. Debtors Anonymous is a growing movement.

It's interesting to note that the term "workaholism" has entered popular awareness at all. Addiction awareness seems to enter public consciousness like a grief process: first there's denial-drinking makes you cool; then there's bargaining-sure alcoholism exists, but only affects the bums on skid row (that's when all the joking starts); then there's anger-prosecute drunk drivers to the full extent of the law!; only after you recognize how truly destructive the drug is, usually only after it's affected you personally, do you then think about giving it up.

That's where "hitting bottom" comes in. Some alcoholics need only piss off a few friends before they get clean. Some have to run over school children, before they stop. Some people don't hit bottom until the addiction kills them. That's the mystery of recovery.

Workaholism is still transitioning from denial to bargaining, just a decade or two behind sex addiction. Sure, hardly anyone is taking it too seriously today; many people still proudly call themselves "workaholics," but more and more of us are embarrassed for them when they do, thinking about the wife and kids this jackass is neglecting. But the day is coming when the deleterious effects of compulsive working are catalogued and named. The "high" produced by exceeding unrealistic expectations won't be something managers can be unselfconsciously proud of. Already, a growing number of people are voluntarily "down sizing" their careers to focus on their mental and emotional health and on their real lives.

It's a process. Consciousness is evolving at a faster and faster rate every year. There are fewer and fewer places to run and hide, Embers, the truth is coming for us all!

In the meantime, it's gonna be a pretty bumpy ride for all of us.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 9:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Wha-huh? I know all kinds of people who aren't particularly greedy at all. Myself for instance. What are you talking about?

I was talking about the fact that the US does less recycling than any other country on the planet, but uses more energy than pretty much everyone else combined.

Do you know anyone who actually tries to conserve energy or water?
Do you know anyone who is driving an electric car, using only bio-degradable products, or avoids poluting the planet?

I would say that hogging the resources of Earth and destroying the enviornment is all greed...the by products of greed.
I'm just saying that when I have visited Europe I have been struck by how much more careful everyone else is compared to how wasteful we are.

Join my crew: Fairfield Fireflies
http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/index.html?fuseaction=gro
ups.main&searchby=F

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 9:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ah.

So you recognize that in some way greed is at least affected by upbringing. My contention is that if it is modifiable, it is not intrinsically human nature.

As to the 99% who are not greedy: roughly half the world's population is just trying to stay alive.

Most of the rest are just trying to get by. And for those not on the edge of survival, what do they spend their days doing? Do live by cheating strangers out of their stuff? Or steal? Are they constantly plotting against family and friends? What is it that they DO that's greedy?

If they are greedy, then it is some limited circumscribed version of greed.

Most people I know would be happy with a secure livelihood (not handout). They're not looking to have it all - they're looking to always have enough.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 9:29 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Do you know anyone who actually tries to conserve energy or water?
Do you know anyone who is driving an electric car, using only bio-degradable products, or avoids poluting the planet?

I do. About 10% of the people where I work do this as well.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
Do you know anyone who actually tries to conserve energy or water?
Do you know anyone who is driving an electric car, using only bio-degradable products, or avoids poluting the planet?

LOL! You are sooooo asking the wrong guy! I practically live on a commune! An all American commune, I might add!

Don't personally have an elecrtic car, but choose not to own a car and take public transportation to and from work. Dude, you gotta get out of the 'burbs and see how people really live! LOL!

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be mean, I realize that what you're talking about are very serious issues within our culture, but if you knew me, you'd be laughing too!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 9:52 AM

HKCavalier, I am impressed by your life-style,
but if you think you are in the majority in this country then it is you who needs to open your eyes to the reality.

And Rue, if one benefits from the infra-structure of a country which practices greed in it's dealings with the rest of the world,
then one should also take responsibility for it, IMO.
Just because I have never held a gun doesn't mean that I am not responsible for every shot taken by a member of our Armed Forces...one must either support the action or work to change it.
(that is a slightly different angle on the same question, I'm just saying that we ARE our government, and all the corporate interests which represent us over-seas).

Unless or until we are all willing to live a life of selfless denial like HKCavalier (and is that computer at the commune plugged into solar power too?) then I don't think we can pretend we are not benefiting from our Government's efforts to indulge us (do you know how much they pay for a gallon of petrol in Europe!?! We would have an over-throw of the government if they were to tax us half so much).

Obviously I'm taking an extreme position here, but I think it is a valid point. We cannot self-righteously stand here and insist we have over come all greed while we ignore those who are starving and dying around the world.

Join my crew: Fairfield Fireflies
http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/index.html?fuseaction=gro
ups.main&searchby=F

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 9:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I would say that hogging the resources of Earth and destroying the enviornment is all greed...the by products of greed.

There's a difference between greed and carelessness. I don't see a lot of "greed" at the individual level. What I DO see is "greed" at the systemic level. But before I go off into left field, I'm going to have to read this entire thread.

OH, and BTW- I drive an energy-efficient car, I'm ALWAYS turning off lights, buy organic (when available), recycle and the best part.... I my job is mainly in the realm of reducing pollution!

HK- Some day I'd like to live in a commune too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 11:08 AM

Well, I got the smallest, most efficient gas car I could, my next will be a hybrid, I recycle glass, metal, and paper, and when I beat up bad guys, I use economy of motion to save energy...
I mean, I turn off lights I'm not using

.
I even got me a newfangled washer/dryer combo unit that dries cloths through precipitation, it uses half the energy and water of a standard set.

Funny, I live pretty simply, yet I still feel like I have so much. I would love to live in a commune.

The bottom line is we can all do more to use less. I can't stand the packaging at supermarkets, such waste; I get as much as I can from local farmers. Not that I'm to be commended, on the contrary, I still waste too much.

Confessin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 11:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There's a difference between greed and carelessness.

well call it what you will,
to get back to my original point:
I think people will be just as careless in 500 years as they are now.
I don't see people 'evolving' beyond =
the 'haves' (the members of the Alliance and/or the Federation) who are in power and enjoy the wealth and privileges of power,
and the 'have nots' (the Browncoats, the riff raff on the fringes of society struggling to keep flying).

note: my point was never that the Alliance/Federation/or the USA today is evil, I don't see 'greed' as evil, just human nature. Which is probably why you don't see any greed, because you don't see people as evil, just careless about the rest of humanity....

edited to add Chrisisall's confessions:

Quote:
Well, I got the smallest, most efficient gas car I could, my next will be a hybrid, I recycle glass, metal, and paper, and when I beat up bad guys, I use economy of motion to save energy...
I mean, I turn off lights I'm not using.
I even got me a newfangled washer/dryer combo unit that dries cloths through precipitation, it uses half the energy and water of a standard set.

Funny, I live pretty simply, yet I still feel like I have so much. I would love to live in a commune.

The bottom line is we can all do more to use less. I can't stand the packaging at supermarkets, such waste; I get as much as I can from local farmers. Not that I'm to be commended, on the contrary, I still waste too much.

LOL
that is kind of my situation:
I drive a small fuel efficient car, and the next will be a hybred
I have a special washer that uses less water and extracts the water after the rinse more efficiently so that drying time is less,
I live in an ashram, eat organic and recycle.
But I don't kid myself that it is enough.
No way am I giving up my air-conditioning
or my hot & cold running water.

I've traveled enough to know that US is not the only country that enjoys a comfortable life style.
I've traveled enough to have seen a lot of the poverty of those who make our clothes....
It is all pretty over-whelming.
Christ said there will always be poor,
and I'm afraid he is right.
Try as we might on an individual level we still enjoy a far more privileged life than most.
(in case you don't recognize it, that is liberal guilt talking)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 1:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
HK- Some day I'd like to live in a commune too.

What a bunch of commies! LOL!

Just to be clear, strictly speaking it ain't a full-on commune. I believe the term du jour is "intentional community." Everybody's got capitalistical jay-oh-bee's and I have no idea what anyone else makes at them (well, some idea). Grow a lot of our produce here (mmmmmmm, homegrown basil) but not all.

And hey, Embers, your position, if I may say so, sounds a tad perfectionistic. I don't have all the answers, but some of us have some of them. I have friends who do generate all their electricity at home. I ain't there yet, but that doesn't mean I'm killing the planet or waging a war of aggression overseas. On the other hand, it's fair to say that my self-sufficient friends are a little crazier than I am (no, really

). You just have to strike the right balance to suit yourself. And there's no need to feel guilty for benefiting from a system you were born into. Just do your part to improve things and try not to back-slide, y'know?

You can't use the progress of the last 3000 years as a measure of the progress of the next 3000 or even the next 100. Most of the global progress toward recongnizing human rights has happened in just the last century or so. People didn't even know what children were until Freud started paying attention. Of course, the destructive potential of the human endeavor has exponentiated as well. That's the fascinating thing about history: it's got momentum.

Firefly is what I call a cautionary tale and pretty gorram astute one at that. Joss is showing us where Capitalism will prolly take us in the long run; what I call endgame capitalism. The idea is to show us where we're headed so we can change direction before it's too late. I think a lot of us are pulling on the breaks.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
(in case you don't recognize it, that is liberal guilt talking)

It's only 'liberal guilt' if you walk around thinking that if you feel bad about it all the time, that somehow makes it better for those in need.
Otherwise I'd call it humanist humility.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You can't use the progress of the last 3000 years as a measure of the progress of the next 3000 or even the next 100. Most of the global progress toward recongnizing human rights has happened in just the last century or so.

I'm sorry if I had been a bit snarky in my previous post,
you do make a very valid point here...
I'm afraid I've lost some of my optimism over the years, becoming a little bit cynical when I see the USofA guilty of torturing prisoners...

Quote:
Firefly is what I call a cautionary tale and pretty gorram astute one at that. Joss is showing us where Capitalism will prolly take us in the long run; what I call endgame capitalism. The idea is to show us where we're headed so we can change direction before it's too late. I think a lot of us are pulling on the breaks.

Joss' intentions are always make for an interesting discussion. In the commentary to 'Objects in Space' Joss seems to suggest that he is an existentialist,
but we know that at heart he DOES believe in noble ideals and family love and other warm fuzzies....
But here (like the Alliance is Communist or Facist debate) we find that both the optimists and pessimists can find a lot that speaks to them in 'Firefly'.
In the end it is the brilliance of the writing that we can be moved and up-lifted by this show,
without it seriously challenging our own POV.

I promise I'll try not to sound so jaded in the future

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 3:59 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
if one benefits from the infra-structure of a country which practices greed in it's dealings with the rest of the world, then one should also take responsibility for it, IMO.

I would GLADLY give up everything I have if it could make the world a fair place. And I do what I can as an individual and as a group member to try to change things.

But the most important thing to change is - a mind.

I wish I could explain how convinced I am that a society is the free choice of its members.
And when people come to a new realization, nothing can stand in the way.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 5:13 PM

I haven't really been following this thread lately, but it seems to be settling on the moral implications of capitalism, whether you can actually have a sane moral society under a free market in the long run. I think you can. But I'm pretty sure that the mess we have now won't improve unless we make some fairly radical changes, and soon.

For me, the malignancy on the free market is the corporation. Capitalism, and again I'm talking about my idyllic version of it, is completely centered on the decisions of individuals. A corporation isn't an individual. It will never hold the responsibility nor the accountability of an individual. Most of the injustices we've been discussing happen when those profiting from them are safely removed from those suffering them.

Modern corporations essentially exists as rogue states, people who combine their wealth and use it to buy influence and power that will further expand their wealth and influence.

All that said, I'm not sure where I stand these days. I've always supported the free market because I believe in a free society. If people don't have control over the fruits of their labor, other freedoms become superfluous. What I'd like to see, before we give up on free enterprise entirely, is to see if we can find some way to get rid of the current corporate model. I'm not sure what we'd replace it with, or even if it should be replaced.

The problem with giving up the corporation is, that it's largely responsible for the current position the US holds in the world. The multi-national corps, hosted by the US, have essentially established the world wide empire that our political ideology prohibits us. They move behind the scenes of every single US 'police action' or 'peace keeping' mission. Eagerly expanding their influence into the newly cleared 'markets'. Asking the US to turn its back on the corporation would basically be asking us to give up our super power status overnight. I'd be eager to do so myself, but I'm guessing a broad majority, liberals and conservatives alike would not.

Sorry for the rambling post. I know my thoughts weren't entirely clear. That's partially because I'm still a little in flux on the issue myself. Its also because I haven't slept much lately. I've been working on a midlife career change which has been an uphill battle. The good news is, I got the job. I'll be starting the 29th as a programmer for a software firm in Pennsylvania. The CEO is a Firefly fan!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 5:15 PM