Quote:

---

Do you really think this shit is self-correcting?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I think we've already agreed that the capitalist drive to raise profits winds up with lowering labor costs as much as possible. There's no incentive to provide anything more than starvation wages... or even less...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Canada, or Denmark, or Sweden, or Switzerland or ... v the US

---

Quote:

---

You keep stating that folks in capitalist economies are starving to death in droves due to low wages as if it's established fact. I'd like to see a cite, please. Both that wages tend to go down under capitalist economies and that starvation increases in any particular country as capitalism increases.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Canada, or Denmark, or Sweden, or Switzerland or ... v the US

---

Canada, Denmark, et. al. all have capitalist economies. They're not Socialist or Communist economies at all. The most they are is welfare states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

Communist economies - now that the Soviet Union has tanked - are China, Cuba, North Korea. Any more you can think of?

The Socialist Party U.K.- who should know who's Socialist and who isn't - says that there are no Socialist governments in Europe; that all governments have "remained capitalist through and through."
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/News2Frame.htm?socialistcountries.htm

So in comparing the U.S. to Sweden, etc. you're comparing apples to apples, and proving that capitalism works.

Thanks for your endorsement of Capitalism.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyway Sarge, apparently several people besides me "get" the idea of economic coercion, from historical, theoretical and personal viewpoints.

---

Quote:

---

Its a concept you might wanna think about, because it is a very real phenomenon and salient to the conversation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:



Ah - So when Obama moves to exert more government control over business, when he says we need to have a redistribution of wealth, when he says we need universal health care, and all the right-wing nut-jobs start screaming "SOCIALIST!" - what they REALLY mean is, "See? I told you he was a capitalist! He just endorsed capitalism!"

Right?

Sweet. I knew he wasn't really a socialist. Obama's win must surely be seen as a victory for capitalists everywhere; I'm sure Geezer would agree wholeheartedly.

Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Shame on you, SergeantX. You should know better. Or be more honest..

---

Quote:

---

I'm simply disagreeing with your attempt to equate economic power with political power. The source of our disagreement is in your denial of what I consider obvious: economic power is dependent on political power (law).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, fuck you Geezer.

---

Quote:

---

I could cite nation after nation and incident after incident, but you with your background, of all people, know the stats as well as I do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
In this case, you've got it bassakwards. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say that the economic world is composed of just a few big players... one or two agricultural corporations, three or four clothing manufacturers, one chipmaker, an automobile maker or two etc. They all operate on the same principle: maximize profit, screw the worker. Maybe they're even in direct collusion... they set wages in consultation with with each other, they blacklist troublemakers etc. There's no law FOR it.... but there's no law against it either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
These pushy people in suits still have those factories, and if money and contracts are now worthless production will equal power. If I have a factory, and someone else doesn't, that's the basis of political power anyway.

---

Quote:

---

Sounds good so far, but digging a little deeper you see that without government support, they are powerless. Their money is only good if the government backs it.

---

Quote:

---

You keep jumping to this moralistic level

---

Quote:

---

I'll break it down more. What happens to the company when the government "quits taking their phone calls"? When the police no longer look after their property. When the courts no longer enforce their contracts. When the state no long honors the value of their money? At that point they're no longer the rich and powerful elite. They're just some pushy people in suits stand in the midst of a bunch of expensive factories and offices.

---

Quote:

---

When the courts no longer enforce their contracts

---

Quote:

---

Ownership of the factory is a legal concept. If the government doesn't recognize their property rights - well, they can say it's their factory, but honestly it's owned by whomever is strong enough to take it. Even if you assume that the factory "owners" can maintain control of their factory without government (which is stretch), how's this "production" going to happen? It's not like production is a commodity that can be hoarded. It's an activity. If their money is no good, they can't hire people to do the production, to run the machines, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Ownership of the factory is a legal concept. If the government doesn't recognize their property rights - well, they can say it's their factory, but honestly it's owned by whomever is strong enough to take it.

Even if you assume that the factory "owners" can maintain control of their factory without government (which is stretch), how's this "production" going to happen? It's not like production is a commodity that can be hoarded. It's an activity. If their money is no good, they can't hire people to do the production, to run the machines, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The economic PTB could cut governments out at any time... that IS the direction they're heading in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by out2theblack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:



Ah - So when Obama moves to exert more government control over business, when he says we need to have a redistribution of wealth, when he says we need universal health care, and all the right-wing nut-jobs start screaming "SOCIALIST!" - what they REALLY mean is, "See? I told you he was a capitalist! He just endorsed capitalism!"

Right?

Sweet. I knew he wasn't really a socialist. Obama's win must surely be seen as a victory for capitalists everywhere; I'm sure Geezer would agree wholeheartedly.

Mike

---

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money... and more must be printed by government idiots. He knows no country has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity.

---

Quote:

---

I'd bet that the employees at the GM and Chrysler dealerships closed at the government's insistance

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JKiddo:
I have to take issue with the idea that printing more money will create inflation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JKiddo:
Everyone seems to be fixated on the number of dollars floating around in the economy, as if that was the only source of capital.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JKiddo:
But every time you have a bubble- whether than bubble is in real estate or tulip bulbs- that bubble itself adds money to the money supply by creating "value" on which consumption can be based. Once that debt is turned to consumption it behaves just real money. In other words- bubbles behave just like an increase in "real money" by creating an alternate source of circulating capital.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ah - So when Obama moves to exert more government control over business, when he says we need to have a redistribution of wealth, when he says we need universal health care, and all the right-wing nut-jobs start screaming "SOCIALIST!" - what they REALLY mean is, "See? I told you he was a capitalist! He just endorsed capitalism!"

Right?


Mike

---

Quote:

---

More on this subject :


" Why has this become such an important topic? Because the current administration's economic strategy could create the greatest economic disaster in recorded history."


Not only is the administration planning on enormous deficit spending this year, but the current plan calls for increasing deficit spending for the next decade – spending that will more than double our entire national debt during Obama's presidency. At the same time, Obama plans to extend federal control over vast and critical sections of our economy, promulgating new and extensive rules and taxes over both the power industry and the health care business.

Go back and read that through again, only substitute "Bush" for "Obama", and see if anything changes. Oddly, when it was "the other guy" doing the exact same shit, many people seemed to have no problem with it.

Quote:

---

The government will pay for this debt by increasing taxes and inflating away the value of our currency. This will create a disaster in the coming years. I can't tell you when it will happen... but I can tell you it will happen. That's why it's critical you take precautions right now."

---

1) Are you sure we can't "tax cut" our way out of this? Isn't that what conservatives normally recommend as the solution to massive deficits?

2) How long have you been saying "I can't tell you when, but I can tell you it will happen." I can say the same thing of "The Big One" hitting California, but that doesn't really help unless you can narrow down the timeframe a bit...


Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree with any particular point, O2B. In fact, if you'll go back and read my posts with an eye towards sarcasm and snark, you might find that I actually agree with you - but I do have to wonder where the people were who so vigorously disagree with Obama's policies when the previous administration was doing THE EXACT SAME THINGS.

As for myself, I'm becoming more and more disappointed with Obama; he had the chance to try to DO something in his first hundred days, and he basically pissed it away.


Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JKiddo:

Quote:

---

I'd bet that the employees at the GM and Chrysler dealerships closed at the government's insistance

---

The government hasn't insisted on anything; except that if these companies want government money they must come up with a reorganization plan. Otherwise, they can go the bankruptcy route, which is the typical way of dealing with insolvent companies.

---

Quote:

---

Doesn't matter what the puppets are named , what really matters is for Folk to put down their old partisan arguments and begin discovering what is really going on...

---

Quote:

---

I wish you'd bring back your 1984 'blueprint' quote...Because , given the current geopolitical situation , it's becoming more true by the day...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

From what I've been reading of the government's involvement with GM and Chrysler reorganization plans, Treasury Department "advisors" have been involved every step of the way, letting the companies know which actions would be acceptable to the government, and which wouldn't. I doubt the carmakers would have taken such a big step without getting the OK from these advisors. I read in the business section of the Washington Post today that the government actually wanted GM to close 2,000 dealerships.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So in other words, Serg, I want government to have less control over personal decisions that I make that affect myself..who I marry or have relationships with, whether I carry a child to term or not, whether to smoke or take drugs. I think we should be responsible for ourselves and our own families, but I think the provision of a good healthcare and education system will benefit everyone. I think there should be a welfare net, but some mutual obligation for using it.

---

Quote:

---

From what I've been reading of the government's involvement with GM and Chrysler reorganization plans, Treasury Department "advisors" have been involved every step of the way, letting the companies know which actions would be acceptable to the government, and which wouldn't. I doubt the carmakers would have taken such a big step without getting the OK from these advisors. I read in the business section of the Washington Post today that the government actually wanted GM to close 2,000 dealerships.

---

Quote:

---

Ahhh... but do you see how these two aims conflict? Setting up business in a caretaker role gives them a vested interest, and a powerful incentive, for exerting more control over society. The healhcare example is good case in point. If we're all with the same insurance company it has a vested interest in our weight, tobacco use, genetic history, number of dependents etc.

---

Quote:

---

The economic issue going forward is, therefore, will the Fed and the Treasury's combined attempt to flood the financial system with money overcome the deflationary impact of a collapse of consumer spending in time to avert a deflationary recession in 2009? Despite the fact that the Federal Reserve is now increasing the money supply at a 10% annual rate, the signs are that it may be insufficient to overcome the tsunami of deflation which is just starting to crash ashore.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JKiddo:
What is "money"? It's the ability to buy something. That something could be a car or it could be an automobile plant. In either case, the purchase is facilitated with money. It's possible to replace money (currency) with a "promise to pay" (debt).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JKiddo:
A promise to pay is just as good as actual currency in creating demand, in that sense it works just like "real" money, and it IS real money- FUTURE real money.

---

Quote:

---

My point is not that we're necessarily creating a deflationary period (We are in one now at the moment) but that inflation is not NECESSARILY in the cards just because the government is printing more money. What occurs depends on whether or not the money supply is increased more than it was decreased by the collapse of the real estate bubble. It's an issue of relative rates.

---

Quote:

---

Debt is a mechanism for moving money that does exist, from where it is to where it's needed. It's not a way of creating money.

---

Quote:

---

It has to exist right now to be lent.

---