It almost happened here. by Fremdfirma

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

It almost happened here.

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Saturday, July 28, 2007 11:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3142
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, July 27, 2007 9:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think what is true is that "the people" expect a certain stability in their institutions

People are not mindless seekers of predictability. People not only want, they NEED a certain amount of control over their future.

Take a look at monkeys (or rats or mice for that matter) Stick them in a cage where they get painfully shocked at random and they spend a fair bit of time trying to figure out how to avoid or prevent it. Deny them that control and they turn into matted balls of fur shivering in a corner of their cage.

Not being able to make a living despite your best efforts, being denied even the most basic resources such as access to land and clean water, forced to live in circumstances where one painful shock after another - unemployment, disease,rape and war- is introduced into your life with no effective way to either avoid or respond is what people DON'T want. They DON'T want is to be tied to the railroad tracks with the train coming at them. That's predictable, but it's not their agenda.

OTOH, give monkeys a "wonderful life"- nice posh surroundings, food on a platter every AM and PM, no need to get up and rustle up some grub(s)... and they get bored. Sick, frustrated and aggressive.

Like monkeys, people need meaningful control over their lives.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Friday, July 27, 2007 9:42 AM

CAVALIER

To judge from their actions most of the people want money to pay for nice things/ experiences for themselves and their families.

To judge from their actions most of businesses want money to pay for nice things/ experiences for their owners.

I can see a pattern here.

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

Friday, July 27, 2007 10:11 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I think what is true is that "the people" expect a certain stability in their institutions
People are not mindless seekers of predictability. People not only want, they NEED a certain amount of control over their future.

I believe you are wrong, I think you assign to all people your motivations even when the evidence shows otherwise. If "want" translated to action AND they all wanted what you want, then we would live in your perfect world.

As it is the populous want a job and somewhere safe to raise their families and if they get that then they overlook all the other things that happen in the world as long as it doesnt effect them.

History has proved the point again and again. I remember being shocked by that revelation I heard the poem that starts something like "they came for the communists, but I was not a communist and so I did nothing."

The German people were not in the main lazy, stupid or evil, just that in the early years the policies of the Third Reich didn't effect most of them and so they did nothing.

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

Friday, July 27, 2007 10:54 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Re: Company Towns.

And who, pray tell, is called upon to "Restore Order" (aka slap down the peons) when the almost inevitable violence results ?

Agents of the state.
Federal Marshals.
US Cavalry.
Etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford,_Arkansas_miners_riot

If unions and corps were allowed to fight it out without state intervention, union labor would be in a much better position these days, but historically, in EVERY case since the civil war, every single time organized labor was winning the fight - agents of the state were called upon to put down the strikers/rioters, and often did so with great malice and cruelty.

That's NOT a free market, that's a serf economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Labor_unions_in_the_United_St
ates

The marriage of corp and state is every bit as bad or even worse, than the marriage of church and state, both are exploitive of, and ruinous to, the people as a whole.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

EDIT: Note, again, the names.
Hearst.
Carnegie.
Rockefeller.
etc etc.

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

Friday, July 27, 2007 11:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I believe you are wrong, I think you assign to all people your motivations even when the evidence shows otherwise. If "want" translated to action AND they all wanted what you want, then we would live in your perfect world... The German people were not in the main lazy, stupid or evil, just that in the early years the policies of the Third Reich didn't effect most of them and so they did nothing.

Well, yes and no. It's true that people like to reduce uncertainty... after all, the entire drive of science and technology is to make the natural world more predictable, more controllable... but there is only one way that that "uncertainty" can be reduced and that is empowerment. That, however, is the last thing the powerful want.

Those who benefit most from any system - whether they are lords and kings, bankers and industrialists, or priests and politicians- make use of uncertainy by offering "the people" a perceived safe harbor while stirring up a whirlwind of uncertainty with which to frighten the peons. And frightened people will tolerate a fair bit of abuse to avoid what they see as worse circumstances otherwise. But this is not a dsecision made by a free-ranging person with the means at-hand to empower thmeselves, it's a decision made by a person already in a cage.

In the case of Pre-WWII germans, they were not stupid and lazy. They were, however, frightened. Their lives were full of uncertainty-hyperinflation in 1923, brutal economic depression in 1935

Quote:
Germany's Weimar Republic was hit hard by the depression... Unemployment soared, especially in larger cities, and the political system veered toward extremism.... In 1935 Germany ran out of money completely primarily due to the reparations it was still paying to the victor countries of World War

They were tied to railroad tracks with no way to get off. Hitler promised them greater certainty, but in the end he only brought them war and ruin- like many power-hungry before and since.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Friday, July 27, 2007 1:38 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
journalistic pugulism

Hey now, that's MY job.

-F

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

Friday, July 27, 2007 2:23 PM

RUE

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

Re: Company Towns.

And who, pray tell, is called upon to "Restore Order" (aka slap down the peons) when the almost inevitable violence results ?
-----------------------

I just wanted to point out that in many cases the companies hired people - that's where the word 'goons' was used, as in 'company goons'.

The problem is generic with capitalism however, and I'll illustrate it here:

WHY didn't people leave company towns ? It's b/c they owed a debt to the company. And if they skipped town ? Then the law would be after them. Why would the law be after them ? Because the legal system frowns on theft.

When you have private goods and a modern economy, you need government to maintain a currency (unless you want to barter directly for milk from your next fare) and to impose property laws (unless you want random people taking your stuff). Unfortunately these things, which seem fair and necessary on their own, become powerful tools in corporate hands

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Friday, July 27, 2007 3:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
When you have private goods and a modern economy, you need government to maintain a currency (unless you want to barter directly for milk from your next fare) and to impose property laws (unless you want random people taking your stuff). Unfortunately these things, which seem fair and necessary on their own, become powerful tools in corporate hands

Which is why it pisses me off no end that the laws are so slanted in favor of business. If a person were to kill several people after coldly calculated profit they'd might be given the death penalty. But if a corporation kills people... even lots of people... through dangerous products, toxic releases, or poor worker safety they at most get fined. If a person breaks into a bank they'd be charged with robbery. But if a corporation robs a pension fund... pfffft! If I were to snoop into my neighbor's car or house he's sue me for trespass. But if a corporation invades your privacy, shares your medical files, snoops thru your records, that's fine.

Did you ever think about saying something specifically bad- even if true- about a big company on the internet? Not a good idea! Better not talk about mad cow disease in Texas! Feel like making a backup copy of a favorite song? Illegal! Benchmarking your Microsucks OS and sharing the results? Illegal! Free speech? Yeah, right.

If I smoke out my neighbor day after day he'd take me to court. If I shit in the town park every day I'd be jailed. If I drain my motor oil in the nearest river I'd prolly be fined. But if I'm a company? I get to write the regulations!

When was the last time you got to declare food, gas and electricity as an operating expense? When was the last time you got to depreciate your car and house? When was the last time you got to vote yourself a nice juicy bonus? Want to declare bankruptcy? Your far better off as a business than as an individual! Steal from your neighbor? Might be a misdemeanor, but if you steal from a business no matter how small the amount it's an automatic felony.

ETA:When did anyone ask YOU how to trade with other nations? When did anyone ask you how the laws should be written? Or where new manufacturing plants should be built?

We are so very very screwed.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Friday, July 27, 2007 3:58 PM

RUE

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

You, you, you ... SOCIALIST !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Friday, July 27, 2007 10:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Meh, someone buy a lottery ticket.

I don't often find myself in agreement with Mr. Rockwell, given that he often espouses the form of "so-called-capitalism" I described above, where it's all hands-off till the abused and exploited peons come with pitchforks and torches, and then it's cry cry cry to the nannystate to save you...

But what are the odds of having brought up and tackled this issue here, and have it followed by...
THIS ?!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/1930s-again.html
I tellya, I'm about shocked out of my little boots on that one.

It does come full circle though, consider that Hitler came to power on a platform of National Socialism, which reverted very quickly to direct Facism in less than a decade.

Same coin, two sides.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

EDIT: I will note however, that Mister Rockwell seems to be living on a different PLANET than the rest of us, in light of this comment.

Mortgage interest rates are creeping along at the lowest possible rates. Unemployment is close to 4%, which is lower than even Keynesians of old could imagine in their wildest dreams.

Seriously... WTF?!

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

Saturday, July 28, 2007 3:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

This is where I and Ron Paul and most Libertarians part company. While we agree that government oppression is part of the problem, we disagree utterly that business is the solution.

Most Libertarians seem to think business can be forced into a competitive small-scale Adam Smith-type "free market" model. Me? I think that's just wish-fulfillment thinking, a dodge from the inevitable conflict between "freedom to" and "freedom from", between business and people.

As any good capitalist should be able to tell you, the natural outcome of a free-market economy is monopolism. There just isn't any way around it. Because of economies of scale and the efficiencies of vertical and horizontal coordination, once a business gains a large portion of market share it will gobble the entire sector if unrestrained. Poof! There goes competition! Has nothing to do with government collusion; it's a purely economic mathematical model.

Plus, you will never be able to break down some large entities into smaller ones; some efforts- like natural gas distribution or auto manufacturing- are either so infrastructurally expensive or require so many different inputs that they are constrained to be large.

And unlike Frem I do not think that unrestrained capitalism and unrestrained unionism would work out to a draw either. Business has a couple advantages that unions do not have: A business- especially a large business- represents the coordinated economic resources of hundreds of thousands of people, freely willing or not, under the direction of a small group. The mechanics of business leadership are like the mechanics of government leadership: Dividing the same power among more people leads to a diffusion of efficiency. That's why the House is less efficient than the Senate, which is less efficient than the President. That's why people turn to "a" strong leader in times of crisis. S/he may be wrong, s/he may be right, but s/he can do things without endless discussion and compromise.

A union, to meet the same efficiency as a business, would have to have control over it's membership's entire wages as well as control of a bank, and in addition have tight undemocratic leadership much like today's CEO/ CFO/ President business structure.

This is why I think that Ron Paul, as smart and principled as he is, has got ONE major flaw in his model. It wouldn't prevent me from voting for him given the competition, but I personally think he's got his head stuck in the sand on this one.

It prolly seems to most of you that I'm always saying what the answer isn't. I'm sure the answer is NOT business, as least not as it is practiced today. But I think the answer is in how we write our laws, specifically what kinds of business structures we allow, how we set their duties (has to be more than fiduciary) and responsibilities and leadership. I would also eliminate the stock market as it encourages "absentee landlordism" of publicly traded companies.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Saturday, July 28, 2007 11:57 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Oh I don't necessarily disagree with ya Siggy, I was just pointing out that Unions have always been given a stacked deck to play with, and things might have sorted a bit better if they hadn't been.

As far as the rest, I think a great part of the issue lies in the issue of Corporate Personhood, which is the root of a great many problems.

A corporation has no conscience, no morals, and will seek it's own advantage without regard to anything but the profit/loss statement.

William Gibson touches lightly on that issue in his writing, in fact.

I've always found the phrase Ethical Business Practices to be as great a contradiction as Military Intelligence, myself.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE