Three disasters, one cause: profit
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Monday, June 14, 2010 21:15
VIEWED: 6449
PAGE 1 of 1
One economic meltdown, caused by banks, lenders and insurances creating money out of thin air for maximum profit.
The other environmental, caused by an oil company cutting corners and refusing to credibly prepare for disaster.
The third health, caused by for-profit treatment of sick people, bleeding our economy dry and killing people in the process.
So keep sucking up to those nice corporations, folks! They only have YOUR interests in mind! (heh heh heh)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So what's your plan?
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So what do you suggest governmental control of everything? That's the quickest way to poverty.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret Signy. Nobody is looking out for you. You need to look out for yourself.
Trusting ANYONE or ANYTHING completely is bad Ju Ju.
The government had a HUGE hand in the economic meltdown. Look up Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. Both government run lending institutions that really screwed us over.
Environmental? Nobody knows what caused the explosion yet. I haven't ruled out sabotage. Plus president Obama gave the Deepwater Horizon a safety award a couple of months before the incident. Plus there are currently MILES of oil barrier sitting in a warehouse but the government after inspecting it and knowing it would help contain the oil so it could be skimmed up decided not to buy it. No explanation was given. The government is letting the oil hit the shores because IMHO they WANT the crisis.
Health? Insurance companies have a big portion of the blame that's for sure, but so do people defaulting on their bills. As well as... wait for it... the government. Many doctors don't want to take Medicaid because the government isn't paying what they've promised to pay.
So what is a one of the common threads among all three of these problems? Government.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Ronald Reagan 1981.
Guess what nothing much has changed.
Come read my stories, http://alonekingofone.wordpress.com/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
--oops double post---
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So why are you grabbing your ankles and bending over?
You need to look out for yourself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And the nominally Socialist nations are that much better? The Soviet Union failed altogether. China has massive pollution, government-funded ecological and humanitarian horrors such as the Three Gorges dam project, weekly mine disasters, and pretty much no protection for workers. The Social Welfare states in southern Europe are finding that they can't support their social programs on the taxes they collect from the capitalists.
Present a better alternative, please. One that actually has a chance of working in a world of individuals with different goals and philosophies would be nice.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oops. Doubletap.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
One that actually has a chance of working in a world of individuals with different goals and philosophies would be nice.
Good luck with that. Probably no system is suitable for everyone at the same time. And any socio-economic system you'd care to name really only works well and stays honest on a local level.
The only way you could please everyone I think is to offer the different systems through local scale business or community model, and have people opt in to the system they want to be part of.
The benefit of having the system self contained business models makes it so there can be multiple systems in a close area. That way opting out doesn't mean leaving town. That may have problems in of itself though, I'd have to think about it.
Over here in America, we have credit unions and co-ops that basically function like a different socio-economic system in the sea of capitalism. I'm talking about a scenario where that type of business model is widespread, even on equal grounds with capitalist businesses.
China did a bad version of it, wouldn't endorse that at all, but they added a capitalist market out of necessity. Do it right, and don't have a police state overseeing the whole thing every step of the way, and that might work.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Advocating anything radically new is advocating a bloody revolution. If power is going to be returned primarily to individuals and cooperatives of individuals then there are many self-interested entities who are going to fight to keep it. And not 'fight' in the polite euphamistic forms of the word.
--Anthony
"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor
"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I did think about that, actually in my previous post I had a sentence or two that I didn't think this would be possible to establish in a capitalistic nation, but then I remembered those co-ops and credit unions here in America. Those were established non-violently. It's not such a stretch to take a business like that, and build a self-sufficient community around it. That's how the cooperatives work in Spain, as I understand it.
It's possible that human apathy in that sense might work to an advantage. Sure, people with self interest might care about the potential loss of consumers, on the other hand, do it gradually, a drop in a bucket at a time, and by the time people start seeing what's happening, they kind of just have to shrug and realize that's where the market is moving. It could inspire them all to give better service to their existing costumers. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Ronald Reagan 1981.
Who then promptly went to work MASSIVELY increasing the size and scope of the government. All while decrying the government. And then running for re-election.
Hypocrisy much?
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
If I don't have to move and I can pay my bills, I'll try cooperative living.
--Anthony
"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor
"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
One economic meltdown, caused by banks, lenders and insurances creating money out of thin air for maximum profit.
The other environmental, caused by an oil company cutting corners and refusing to credibly prepare for disaster.
The third health, caused by for-profit treatment of sick people, bleeding our economy dry and killing people in the process.
So keep sucking up to those nice corporations, folks! They only have YOUR interests in mind! (heh heh heh)
You're blind, on all 3 accounts.
But you don't care. Your mind is made up,regardless.
" Being correct does not excuse a violation of form " - Ducky, NCIS.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
China has massive pollution, government-funded ecological and humanitarian horrors such as the Three Gorges dam project, weekly mine disasters, and pretty much no protection for workers.
Those are pretty much the same qualities you pointed out in China when you claimed that capitalism was triumphing there. And it sounds like the libertarians' idea of paradise. Massive pollution? Well, sure, once they do away with the EPA and all its intrusive regulations. Ecological and humanitarian horrors? Check - all you have to do is look to the Gulf of Mexico and a certain peanut butter factory in Texas to see those capitalist-funded horrors. Weekly mine disasters? Yuppers. Pretty much no protection for workers? Well, you'd have to talk to your libertarian buddy antimason about that; he's been lobbying for doing away with minimum wage and government protection for workers for quite some time.
So the only problem y'all seem to have with the libertarian paradise that is China is the government. If the same issues were happening here - and they are - you'd likely claim it as just the cost of doing business the American way...
Quote:
The Social Welfare states in southern Europe are finding that they can't support their social programs on the taxes they collect from the capitalists.
The social welfare states in the southern United States are noticing the same thing. They just can't keep sustaining themselves without that government money coming in from better states.
Quote:
Present a better alternative, please. One that actually has a chance of working in a world of individuals with different goals and philosophies would be nice.
"One that actually has a chance of working..."
Well, that leaves capitalism out...
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So the only problem y'all seem to have with the libertarian paradise that is China is the government. If the same issues were happening here - and they are - you'd likely claim it as just the cost of doing business the American way...
Since when is China a libertarian paradise? There is almost NOTHING libertarian about China. In fact the only way China has become somewhat of a world power is through becoming more Capitalistic, and less communistic.
Capitalism has created more wealth for all social levels than any other system.
Are you Capitalism haters really suggesting we go to Socialism or Communism?
Give me ONE example where either of the systems hasn't resulted in ruin.
The financial crisis spoken about earlier can be directly attributed to the USA's steady march to socialism.
Look at Obama, he's nationalized the banks, the automakers and now the health care industry. What's next?
Reagan wasn't anywhere near perfect but his quote is 100% accurate. Everything that the government touches turns to crap. It's kinda like the Midas touch.
Why oh why do you socialists think that a government that can't run a "Cash for Clunkers" deal can run our economy without causing it to crash and burn?
Guess what Dems... "I can see November from my house!"
Come read my stories, http://alonekingofone.wordpress.com/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see Crazy Eddie has been all over this thread.
I think folk are beginning to realize, that reality has no impact on the minds of certain folk, they quite literally can not be reasoned with.
And that means there's only one other option, doesn't it ?
Thankfully folks completely immune to reason are rare, and self-destructive as hell, hopefully saving us the trouble.
Anthony, ponder for a while this point - those individuals are not exactly a threat without their little jackboot cuddling hordes, and they're in for a very rude shock when someone else who knows exactly how to do it says all the right keywords, flips all the right switches, and their pre-programmed horde turns on them because they've given in to that conditioning for so long they wouldn't know what free will was if you handed it to em on a plate, and never wanted it much in the first place.
And sometimes, the best use of a dangerous resource, is to use it up.
Sorry for being vague, but this is also an example for DT of how RWAs have certain tremendous gaps in their thinking that prevent them from effectively using intelligence cause they can't put it together, cannot make the logical assumptions with their plug-n-play, no-compare mindset, and so it comes across as gibberish to them, nor do they believe in their own vulnerabilities, so it's pointless to get all cloak and dagger about something you can tell em right to their faces and have them dismiss it, then having dismissed it, keep doing so on economy of effort right up till they get blindsided - you'll see.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MOOSE1942:
Since when is China a libertarian paradise? There is almost NOTHING libertarian about China. In fact the only way China has become somewhat of a world power is through becoming more Capitalistic, and less communistic.
Yes, and look at the problems THAT has led to for them. I point out their libertarian streak in the complete lack of workers' rights, lack of any kind of regulation in the workplace, lack of environmental regulation, rampant pollution, man-made ecological and humanitarian horrors, etc.
You didn't get that I was calling it a libertarian paradise in a mocking, sarcastic tone? Do you Republicans just not get sarcasm? Oh, that's right - you really don't; that's why y'all invited Stephen Colbert to the White House Correspondents' Dinner as the keynote speaker! You honestly thought he was one of you, and didn't realize until far, far too late that he has been mocking you for years.
Quote:
Capitalism has created more wealth for all social levels than any other system.
Well, it's certainly funneled more wealth to the top 1% than all other systems...
Quote:
Are you Capitalism haters really suggesting we go to Socialism or Communism?
If you've been paying attention, I've been pointing out for years that we're already a socialist society. Only the truly, aggressively stupid - those with their heads buried in the sand, or somewhere else - could say that this hasn't been the case.
Quote:
Give me ONE example where either of the systems hasn't resulted in ruin.
Just as soon as you give me one example of where pure capitalism hasn't resulted in the same.
Quote:
The financial crisis spoken about earlier can be directly attributed to the USA's steady march to socialism.
BBZZZZTTT! Wrong-O, Boy-O. The direct cause was DE-regulation, not OVER-regulation.
Quote:
Look at Obama, he's nationalized the banks, the automakers and now the health care industry. What's next?
He has? He "nationalized" the banks, automakers, and the entire health care industry? So I couldn't buy an American car if I wanted one, unless I bought it from the U.S. Government? I can't put my money in any bank or credit union that isn't wholly owned and run by the government? I no longer have the ability to go to a doctor and pay cash? I can't buy my own insurance?
Are you sure? Or are you lying? Oh, I'm sorry - that was harsh; are you EXAGGERATING in an untruthful way?
Quote:
Reagan wasn't anywhere near perfect but his quote is 100% accurate. Everything that the government touches turns to crap. It's kinda like the Midas touch.
Actually, that's called "the Midas touch in reverse". The Midas touch would be a better thing. And why is it that you would support ANYONE running for office in this country, if you think that everything the government touches, it turns to shit? Obviously you think Reagan was a piece of shit, then. He touched the government, and it sure as hell touched him. In fact, that "nationalized" socialist health care system that he got saved his life. I'm sure you wish it hadn't, right? ;)
Truth is, everything the REPUBLICANS touch turns to shit. Look at the deficit - Bush took us from a surplus to a $1.2 trillion yearly deficit in only 8 short years! He turned our military to shit. He turned Iraq to shit. He turned Afghanistan to shit. He turned out international reputation to shit. He turned our economy to shit. And all on borrowed money! What an accomplishment for you; you must be very proud. You corporatist toadies took the most robust economy in the world, and turned us into a third-world laughingstock, in less than 8 years. Amazing.
Every single time a Republican gets into office in the last 30 years, debts soar, deficits skyrocket, and they talk a line of bullshit about cutting spending and cutting the size of the government. It's never once happened, not in Reagan's time, not in either Bush's terms... but if only we'd give you a chance, you'd CHANGE, right? Yeah, right!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Guess what, dummies - it's not looking any better for you this year than it did in '08
The delusion of the day..no, week.... year ?
Who is it looking better for then. Democrats are reeling from blunder after blunder by this administration and their leadership.
Not sure what'll be more priceless come Nov 3rd. Your precious expression that morning because you had no idea, or because you knew, and just didn't want to accept it.
" Being correct does not excuse a violation of form " - Ducky, NCIS.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig hates corporations... no surprise here.
I even agree, to an extent with what she has to say.
Corporations are giant douches. But what keeps them in checK? Free markets.
Sorry, its true.
They act the assclown, don't buy their products. Cut off their oxygen, so to speak.
But that requires a free-market. Where people are FREE NOT to buy their shit.
How Sig can rail against corporations, then support government required revenue TO them just saddens me.
"I hate the horror that medical insurance comapanies are doing.... but I support ObamaCare"
WTF?
Seriously...
WTF???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signy, good point. Corporations can really screw things up.
But, if you want to kill millions of people, in a war, or a genocide, you need a government. Of course, if you want to start a plague, or enslave the planet debt, you need a global charity.
I agree they could be reigned in, especially if you don't have to hand more power to someone more evil than corporations. Important that one not kill the progress of medicine and technology in the aim to control abuse.
All that said, solutions?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I've been pointing out for years that we're already a socialist society.
Mike, good point. Of course, its important to remember that our govt will fuck anything it does up. Most large govts will. The swedes are likely to get it right, which is why socialism doesn't kill sweden. It's on large and small states with no stability that i think its really dangerous. Surely, so is capitalism, I'm sure there are some more stable ideas.
Frem,
I don't think that it's stupidity. I think they're being dishonest. In part, it's understandable, people feel so under attack, they defend things they wouldn't normally, but for the manipulative members, it's just dishonesty.
I find the term RWA is fairly objectionable. It has no basis in history and is used to shove all things evil onto the other half of the population. It's propagandistic, and serves authoritarians by giving the other half of the population a free pass, allowing them to be as authoritarian and abusive as they want. I read that book that promoted the term which was posted here. I respectfully disagree with the theory. I've found no difference on the herding or shepherding behaviors of the right and left over the years.
So, surely, I take your point, but I hope you can see that this absolutely goes on across the political spectrum, and that it is just as geared towards misinformation for stealth promotion of authoritarian dystopia on the left as I admit it is on the right.
Also, I humbly suggest that a large amount of what we might tnk of as manipulative operative behavior is actually just circular thought. If you only ever listen to, support and compromise with those who agree with you, and are close to your political perspective, you can head towards filtering out information and idea which come from an alien perspective.
If, on the other hand, you are willing to take the word of those whom you disagree, even in the extreme, like say, Osama bin Laden, then you fail to gain wisdom through a study of his analysis of the situation, even if you are predetermined to disagree with his conclusions.
I would certainly agree that there are a fair number on the right who do this, but I don't think they are operatives or authoritarians, they are just caught in cyclical thought, tot he point where their judicious pondering with the help of like minded folk has rendered them little more than parrots.
I also think it's safe to say that such thought patterns exists in equal quantities on the left as they do on the right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony,
Not necessarily. It's possible to propose an alternative which does not interfere with the current system, and so reaches no opposition.
I live in the middle of a couple of societies that function on a different left. To the east of me are the satmars, conservative orthodox Hasidim. They run their lawn separate system while influencing local govt. to let them be, and get by with minor interference. To the west of me are the amish, and other menonites, who work on their kwn terms by assuaging the capitalist system with productive added value to business. Each works in part to the benefit of one of our extent systems, and by doing so, does not draw fire. Then, internally, each is allowed to do their own thing.
Btw, it wasn't until I got to your post that I realized that everyone, including myself, in their response attacked the govt, as the alternative. I suppose there are number of alternatives, like the two I just mentioned, which are both essentially theocracies.
Curious side note: in both societies, women where full cover clothing, all black in the case of the satmars, and in both, women wear headscarves. The point of this being why do I hear so much about "ragheads?" maybe SC wants to ban Christians from public office. Also, in the middle of a Hasidic colony there was an Islamic cultural resource center. I have to say that someone has balls of steel.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Guess what, dummies - it's not looking any better for you this year than it did in '08
The delusion of the day..no, week.... year ?
Who is it looking better for then. Democrats are reeling from blunder after blunder by this administration and their leadership.
Not sure what'll be more priceless come Nov 3rd. Your precious expression that morning because you had no idea, or because you knew, and just didn't want to accept it.
You should go look up the "It's Palin" post from '08. Your words were really hilarious. "McCain just won the election. Game over!"
What's really going to be funny on November 3rd is the expression on your face when you realize that Obama is still President.
Wanna put some money on whether the Democrats keep one or both Houses of Congress? Or did you think that the tea-baggers were going to sweep complete control of Congress from them? That is just PRECIOUS! Hell, the tea-baggers just handed Harry Reid an easy victory by backing a prohibitionist, IN NEVADA of all places! (So much for keeping government out of your business, eh?)
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, your right on. Oil has us right by the throat. We have so many problems because of oil. Lately I am just sick of it all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, your right on. Oil has us right by the throat. We have so many problems because of oil. Lately I am just sick of it all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, your right on. Oil has us right by the throat. We have so many problems because of oil. Lately I am just sick of it all.
That's odd it led me to an error page whoops double post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cat:
It's a site issue. New server, I think. Just hit the submit ("Post My Response") button ONCE, and trust that the reply made it through.
I think what's happening is that it throws up the error message, so people go back and hit submit again, causing the double-postiness.
Meanwhile, I'm sure Haken is working on it.
I notice the notifications are turned off, which is usually a sign that he's working on stuffs. :)
Meanwhile, we hold.
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks Kwicko, I was wondering what was going on. I've been moving around the last 9 months. Just now started posting again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mit be the browser also. The form doesn't have a lock against double submit, which, haken , if your lurking, can be done with a message id as a unique hidden variable, stick it on the form submit.
But now, the new browsers are refresh happy, which is annoying as he'll, because kits of things just auto fail, ESP Ajax pages. Disabling refresh would be nice, I wonder if you can do that from the server side. Anyway, if it reloads the submit page, or you double click the button, it double posts. It hasn't happened to me for a while until recently, I just assumed it s iPad, because it double clicks, and safari reloads.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT, I'm thinking not browser. I've run into the same issues with Explorer, Firefox, and Safari.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:37 To Fremdfirma:
Yeah, Frem. You miserable piece of shit.
" Daddy, did you plug the hole yet ? "
C'mere, Malia...
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
...oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hey Signy,
Originally posted by SignyM:
One economic meltdown, caused by banks, lenders and insurances creating money out of thin air for maximum profit.
The other environmental, caused by an oil company cutting corners and refusing to credibly prepare for disaster.
The third health, caused by for-profit treatment of sick people, bleeding our economy dry and killing people in the process.
So keep sucking up to those nice corporations, folks! They only have YOUR interests in mind! (heh heh heh)
What's the difference between an authoritarian and an anti-authoritarian if they both think of the world in the same exact terms, only the authoritarian likes what he sees and the anti-authoritarian doesn't? We need a new paradigm. I don't see a few hundred profiteers running the world for good or ill, I see thousands upon thousands upon millions of wage earners and underlings, y'know, folks, just trying to get by, trying to get through the day, implementing these corrupt policies, day in and day out, not questioning, not interfering.
The problem isn't that the world is run by sociopaths, the problem is that the the world is run by fear. The sociopaths just do REALLY WELL in an environment of fear. They don't want things to change, that's for sure. And if we wanna believe that the sociopaths run the place, they aren't about to argue with us--as long as you and I continue believing that we're powerless against all that incredible and amazing power of theirs, they're good to go.
From where I sit, blaming the world's problems on a few hundred (?) CEO's is exactly like blaming the world's problems on "the terrorists." It goes deeper than that--in both cases. Sure, they're all bad men doing bad things, but all that effort we put into fighting them, eradicating either of 'em, doesn't change the paradigm, it just shuffles the deck and when the smoke clears we're right back where we started.
I say fear and alienation in the guise of comfort seeking and consumerism, moralities based on punishment and reward, the institutionalized abuse we accept as "education," are far more instrumental in bringing about these horrendous tragedies than mere ideology. "Profit," after all, is just a motive.
The folks you're talking to, the usual suspects, those people worship "profit" as a religion and all we do when we blame our troubles on "profit" is spit on their holy of holies. So, o' course, they cry "commie"--it's just their version of "infidel."
It's kinda like you're an atheist arguing not that God doesn't exist, but rather that God is a really, really bad guy. We gotta move outside the Authoritarian paradigm if we wanna make a dent in authoritarian thinking--even if it's just our own!
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HKC: Thank you for that. It puts the real problem into pretty sharp focus, and is a point that bears repeating. As you pointed out, we keep going after "the bad guys" - this week it's BP, last year it was Goldman Sachs and AIG - but we never go after WHY they're the bad guys. We clear them out, and the next bad guy in line thanks us and picks up where those guys left off.
So how do we stop the cycle?
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Uh huh. THIS from the guy who insisted that the UN approved the USA's invasion of Iraq, who kept referring to an old UN Resolution, all the while stubbornly ignoring the fact that UN resolutions supersede each other?
You're blind, on all 3 accounts. But you don't care. Your mind is made up,regardless.
Who was convinced... convinced I tell you!.... that Saddam's WMD posed a credible threat, and who crowed over each decades-old bit of scrap as evidence that Saddam was a threat which required immediate invasion?
Who kept insisting (despite OMB's own records, which date back to the early 1900s) that Federal tax decreases increased revenues? ("I don't know about inflation adjustment and all that")
Who clung to the fact that the economy was ON FIRE, even as I and others were telling you it was in bad shape and going over the cliff? (Well, I guess in a sense you were right: It WAS "on fire", but not in the way you meant!)
Rappy, your blind faith in.... whatever it is you put your blind faith in.... is legion. We ALL know how you cherry pick your facts, ignore reality, and plow on despite the many warning signs from the evidence around you... warning signs which we TRY to clue you in on, but which you resolutely refuse to see. As far as I'm concerned, your feeble name calling is just another example of "Rappy refusing to address reality".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK, I'm with Kwicko, good points.
Profit and ambition themselves are not bad motivations... Within reason, like a number of things. Even competition is not necessarily bad.
It's why I proposed keeping capitalism around in some form or another above, it's not for everyone, so we do need other options, but some people do cotton to it. Maybe as more options come around and people's mindsets change from beat the other guy into dust, it'll become less popular, maybe not and it'll always be around in some capacity. At any rate, we need to get off a completely capitalist system, into something more flexible where people have choices, and the best way to do it is gradually.
When the way someone competes is shortsighted, ruthless, and cutthroat, with no mind for consequences around them that they cause, that's when it's gone too far. I think all of us, even the strongest capitalists here, barring political message, would decry when a business behaves unethically or irresponsibly. Even AURaptor is upset with BP, though he's also very angry with Obama (surprise).
The question is, is that a necessary consequence of the capitalist system itself (Sig would say yes), or do the other factors you mentioned create the monsters as well as their frightened peons to serve them?
Many of these higher ups it could be argued come from dynasties. They've been groomed. So long as they continue to get into power (and the system is set up to only allow THEM into power), they'll continue to set the standards for ineffective education and punishment-based morality, as it's in their interests to do so.
Change the general population, what changes in the long term? Most people in the population are aware that mindless consumerism is not a path to happiness. Some others are even aware that finding a partner to "complete you" and marriage and childbirth leading to debt slavery isn't necessarily a path to happiness either, guff about "twue wuv" not withstanding. (marriage and childbirth aren't BAD, and can lead to happiness, but it's also a way that people allow themselves to be controlled and taken advantage of). So there's already an element out there that sees through it all, willing to work outside the system, but not big enough to make changes. Say you change enough of the general population, what then? What about the part of the general population so indoctrinated that they can't and won't change? I guarantee they'll struggle and resist you, because they'll be terrified of YOU, they don't know what to do without someone telling them, and you're a threat to the people controlling them.
I'm not sure the general population is the real source of the problem, which is why people focus so much on CEOs and politicians. You want to cut off the head. Problem is, you're right, it's a hydra.
So how do you stop new heads from spawning? I think Frem's got some of it, in that the real monsters undergo a lot of abuse and emotional nglect. But I think there maybe be something else there, too. In America, emotionally neglected kids shoot up a high school rather than become a CEO/politician, not unless they're already FROM a certain social class.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Been away, so in one fell swoop:
Let me note for the record that a CEOs now have "golden coffins", as well as golden parachutes and golden commodes. It used to be only kings had that. Also, BP has bought up the google term "oil spill".
Quote:This has bearing on how money is used to create a new morality. (see below)
BP isn't too fond of people using search engines to check up on its Gulf of Mexico misadventures. The company has bought up some Google and Yahoo phrases in order to scuttle efforts to find news reports using such words.
Quote:SIGNY: Thank you for asking. I'll get to that later.
PIZMOBEACH: So what's your plan?
Quote:SIGNY: And you think most of us aren't poor now? And getting poorer?
MOOSE1942: So what do you suggest governmental control of everything? That's the quickest way to poverty.
Quote:SIGNY: Bull, and disproved many times over. Economists have looked it over, and found that Fannie and Freddie combined made up less than 10% of the problem, specifically because THEY were required (by law) to make sound loans. I'm willing to go into depth on this if you are, because I looked at the whole meltdown in great detail.... the explosion of poorly-secured loans not only by banks but by lenders like Countrywide, the dissolution of the Glass Steagal Act, the creation of Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) as a separate entity specifically designed to be unregulated either as loan OR as insurance... Care to go toe-to-toe on this one? 'Cause I guarantee, if we do this on a fact-to-fact comparison, you're gonna lose.
MOOSE: I'm going to let you in on a little secret Signy. Nobody is looking out for you. You need to look out for yourself. Trusting ANYONE or ANYTHING completely is bad Ju Ju.The government had a HUGE hand in the economic meltdown. Look up Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. Both government run lending institutions that really screwed us over.
Quote:SIGNY: You're being illogical. On the one hand, you say that industry is golden. On the other hand, you blame to government for being too business-friendly. And- finally- you toss in an off-the-wall conspiracy in which somehow government is NOT stepping in to save industry from its own worse excesses... in order to discredit industry. My head is spinning! What ARE you saying?
MOOSE: Environmental? Nobody knows what caused the explosion yet. I haven't ruled out sabotage. Plus president Obama gave the Deepwater Horizon a safety award a couple of months before the incident. Plus there are currently MILES of oil barrier sitting in a warehouse but the government after inspecting it and knowing it would help contain the oil so it could be skimmed up decided not to buy it. No explanation was given. The government is letting the oil hit the shores because IMHO they WANT the crisis.
Quote:SIGNY: So now you're saying the government isn't involved ENOUGH in health care?
MOOSE: Health? Insurance companies have a big portion of the blame that's for sure, but so do people defaulting on their bills. As well as... wait for it... the government. Many doctors don't want to take Medicaid because the government isn't paying what they've promised to pay.
Quote:SIGNY: Given your incredibly confused logic which is twisted whichever way it needs to be in order to reach a "BLAME GOVERNMENT" conclusion... I'm not surprised!
MOOSE: So what is a one of the common threads among all three of these problems? Government.
Quote:
GEEZER: And the nominally Socialist nations are that much better? The Soviet Union failed altogether. China has massive pollution, government-funded ecological and humanitarian horrors such as the Three Gorges dam project, weekly mine disasters, and pretty much no protection for workers. The Social Welfare states in southern Europe are finding that they can't support their social programs on the taxes they collect from the capitalists. Present a better alternative, please. One that actually has a chance of working in a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK
Well said, I think I'll ditch my own analysis in favor of yours. Of course the organizations that hold people are just made up of people, it doesn't matter what form of organization they choose. But if you really want to end the fear and ignorance, the best cure for dark shadows is light. We need tl shine a little more information on the problem. Make sure people aren't afraid of new information, and that people aren't filtering our information, or if they are, make sure that we know how and to what end they filter it, and make sure that we have multiple sources so we can get different filters, and cover the gaps of what has been filtered out.
Stepping outside of their power structure and economy might be a another tack, but don't think of it as commie, because I assure you, the poweres that be, the people called by some here "right wing authoritarians" a term I find personally offensive, please, I thought we agreed on this, TPTB, anyway, they most definitely OWN communism. Honestly isn't anyone wondering why china is a commie capitalist lovefest? Well hey, wasn't the USSR? Hey, isn't this always the case. Gee, I wonder why that could be.
Instead, I give you the freegans. I propose something close to this, not a cooperation that involves tanks rolling into town forcing mindless assimilation on the slave-masses.
Quote:
SIGNY: I disagree. Starvation kills an awful lot of people, and that has more to do with uneven distribution of capital than anything else.
Sig, this just simply isn't true. Famines are caused by govts as part of genocidal programs. I'm pretty sure this is damn close to 100% of the time. It's like looking for a natural desert or a non economic war, a peaceful empire or an anarchist state. Sure, the small random example may exist, but it's dwarfed by the gargantuan trend in the other direction. It's sort of like saying that BP is an oil cleaner upper, because, y'know, it is. But that would just imply that they weren't a more major mess maker, which wouldn't be the case.
Avoiding the part where blaming wealth disparity is a lot like blaming the victim here, more to the point, it's simply not the case. Famines result from govt. Interference in food production and distribution networks, and almost all the time they know damn well exactly what they're doing which is why they set up the systems in the first place, to prevent the people from having oral control over their own food. This is why I say, hey, forget the firearms, go to the farms. No one is coming after you with guns, historically, it's very unlikely. Starve you out, well, that's something they might try. Like they did in russia and the Ukraine, and Ireland, and the USA, and all over east Asia, and even more in Africa, and they're still doing it in Africa, right now. In the Sudan, in ethiopia, somalia, and Zimbabwe, and its looking suspiciously like that's what's going on in Gaza. Hey, it's what Clinton did in Iraq, and it killed more people tha the war. Because that's what famine does, it kills more people than war. And when you look into it, and look real long and hard, I'll tell you what you'll find: you'll find that famine *is* war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Famines are caused by govts as part of genocidal programs. "
Hello,
Some famines are simply caused by poor planning. No genocidal scheme. Just planning X and getting Y.
--Anthony
"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor
"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT: war and famine often go together... but not always. You generally don't hear about non-violent starvation bc it's not newsworthy to corporate media. There was a HUGE famine in NW Brazil some decades ago... millions starved while working the boss' plantations. Children even today are starving to death all over the world without any conflict. Look at Haiti. Farmers in India are committing suicide, having entered into pacts with Roundup-Ready. The so-called Green Revolution (brought to you by Monsanto TM) only benefits the companies which created it.
Starvation occurs because people don't have access to what they need to grow food: enough land, water, fertilizer, and (yes) security. There was a rather long story about hunger in Africa; the FIRST issue is that the land is divided equally among all boy children, leading to smaller and smaller and smaller plots which were not owned by the people who actually worked them (women).
The SECOND problem is - believe it or not- lack of markets. How does the saying go? When the crops don't fail, the prices do. Farmers in good years should be able to sell to government granaries at good prices. (Farmers themselves don't have the capacity to store grain from year to year... it goes moldy and becomes infested.) This is the government's fault per se, except that it DOESN'T intervene when it should. Quite honestly, this is the IMF/ World Bank plan, same as Haiti.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signy: ™ is typed easily in Windows by holding down the "Alt" key and hitting "0153" on the number pad. No need to superscript it, which didn't seem to take.
On a Mac, you just hit "Option-2".
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig
the problem is that all the things you state actually do occur, and yet are not the cause of the problem. I do study the subject a fair amount because i farm and all my neighbors also farm. Theres a reason were not big on the communism. Actually, there are a fair number of folk who are on subsidies, but thats largely agribusiness, and dont get me started on that...
but the simple fact is that the sheer numbers of death of the major famines of the world come down to one thing:
Government run food distribution.
Keep food local, and keep govt as far away from it as possible, and everything will be fine.
BTW, when crops fail, prices soar.
I'm sure that there are examples of what you say being the controlling factor, I'll look into the Brazilian famine, do you have details?
I hope you acknowledge the threat of centralized food distribution. Major famines that were preceded by the institution of government run food distribution have resulted in millions of deaths on several points in history, as the system inevitably fails. It's such a bad idea, that I have to think that I have to at least consider the possibility the people who set it up have genocide as a goal.
Here are some
Stalin with Trotsky and Kruschev
Mao
Mugabe
Mengistu of ethiopia (also eritrea, somalia, and tigre) things didnt improve much with Zenawi
Hoover
Clinton with complacency of Saddam Hussein
I also have to ask myself: Is this what Netanyahu has in mind for Palestine?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike: I don't use Windows or Apple. I was hoping a straight html command would work... apparently not! But thanks for the suggestion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT: I think we mostly agree on what causes starvation, we're just talking about the proportions. I'm thinking 50/50, you're thinking 90/10. In my book, that's pretty close.
WULF, I'm especially interested in your reply to: You are sadly mistaken about the so-called "free market" and I suggest that you read some economic history and theory. Look at this from the businessman's POV: The PRIMARY drive of the capitalist is to ELIMINATE COMPETITION by driving competitors out of business and gaining market share.... hopefully (from his or her POV) total market dominance. In addition, due to economies of scale* (*cheaper to produce a thousand widgets per item than it is to produce one) a company which is somewhat larger has an intrinsic advantage over others in the same sector. Vertical and horizontal monopolies are much more efficient than their individually-controlled counterparts. So small-business capitalism contains fundamental, intrinsic, impossible-to-root-out drivers impelling it towards big-business corporatism and monopolism. That already happened, Wulf. It occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s even when our government was small. It happens without government help. Also, for the record: I WAS AND CONTINUE TO BE AGAINST GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS AND AGAINST MANDATED PRIVATE INSURANCE. Why you keep misrepresenting me is... ???? I mean, really... WTF???? Get with the program! If you're going to argue with me, argue with ME, not with the voices in your head! And FINALLY... As for "cutting off their oxygen"... BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Go ahead! Stop buying oil products. Get off the grid. Don't buy either Microsoft OR Apple. Stop using money. Be my guest! Feel free to do all that! How far have you gotten with cutting off their oxygen, btw?
MOOSE, and in YOUR reply to You're being illogical. On the one hand, you say that industry is golden. On the other hand, you blame to government for being too business-friendly. And- finally- you toss in an off-the-wall conspiracy in which somehow government is NOT stepping in to save industry from its own worse excesses... in order to discredit industry. My head is spinning! What ARE you saying? So... what ARE you saying?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The Social Welfare states in southern Europe are finding that they can't support their social programs on the taxes they collect from the capitalists.
While other European social welfare states still have higher social mobility and GDP per capita than the US. Hows keeping up with the public debt going for the capitalist united states?
The one that had to be vastly expanded to save Capitalism I mean.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And the "World Cup" is stupid too.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The Social Welfare states in southern Europe are finding that they can't support their social programs on the taxes they collect from the capitalists.
While other European social welfare states still have higher social mobility and GDP per capita than the US. Hows keeping up with the public debt going for the capitalist united states?
The one that had to be vastly expanded to save Capitalism I mean.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
And the "World Cup" is stupid too.
And England is lousy at it, we've not won since the 60's! You Yanks are good at that World Series thing though, you win every year I hear.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
While other European social welfare states still have higher social mobility and GDP per capita than the US.
First, few European social welfare states have higher GDP per capita that the U.S. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capit
a
Note that these stats are 2006, and I'd bet Iceland's GDP per capita has dropped a bit.
I'd appreciate a cite of social mobility by nation.
Also, the social welfare states of Europe depend on taxes paid by the capitalist enterprises and their employees to support their social welfare.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you know what the difference between me and you is, Geezer? I see problems and think of ways to fix them.
So enlighten me. Better not be Socialism.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why not? That would be a big improvement over what we've got now!
Better not be Socialism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
First, few European social welfare states have higher GDP per capita that the U.S.
Doesn't have to be many. A few supports what I said, but well done for trying to dismiss what I just said by proving me right. Bravo.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I'd appreciate a cite of social mobility by nation.
Quote:
Death of the American Dream
The strength and pride of America has traditionally been that it provides for a high level of social mobility. It is part of the “American Dream” in which the poorest of the poor can climb to the top of the social ladder in one generation. This dream has attracted millions of outsiders to the land of promise, away from old Europe, which was incapable of providing a future for the poor. The high social mobility has also worked as a “safety valve” that allows political acceptance of the high income inequality in the US. Finally, it has provided the basis for the extraordinary dynamics of the US economy. Developments of the last decades have shattered this American Dream. It now appears that many EU countries have created an environment in which it is significantly easier for the poor to climb the social ladder than it is in the US. Structural reforms will be necessary in the US if it wants to emulate the success of European countries in organising social mobility.
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/338
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Also, the social welfare states of Europe depend on taxes paid by the capitalist enterprises and their employees to support their social welfare.
Which is pretty irrelevant to anything I posted, but if you feel the need to grasp at straws to defend capitalism feel free.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM
The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. I think you should take a more skeptical look at socialism, and look closely, and historically at all of its incarnations. Then examine with the most cynical eye to see what might have been the cause of the failure in the problems which resulted. Don't just assume you know those causes, consider all possibilities.
If you want my two cents, here's the root of the entire problem: socialism is a system in which the decisions are made by a small group of intellectuals and then implemented across a broad spectrum of humanity. What this really means is that there are fewer brains involved in the decision making process than in a free market society. Certainly, by all means, a free market society as we know it is not ideal. There are still a limited number of brains involved, but at least anyone can become one of those brains without the approval of a ruling body, and any such body is going to express some sort of bias because it is made of humans.
Also, while I will concede that some humans are smarter than other humans, I'm not sure it is a significant detail. Any study of animal psychology or entomology seems to indicate that a larger number of brains yields a superior result if those brains are within a factor of two in size, and I believe all humans are, parse some major brain damage.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer,
I don't think that Europe is a good comparison.
1) European counties are capitalist democracies, and are increasingly so. The US is arguably more socialist than Europe now, judging by the breakdown of our economy, on a percentage basis and the number of american social programs currently running.
2) Europe's population is and has been well off and educated, and has been benefiting from imperialism for centuries. The economic edge of Europe is fairly undeniable if you look at the world stage, regardless of what local govts. decided to do with that edge.
3) european states are smaller in their centralization than America. Very few european social programs are EU based, or federal, most are state based. Large scale centralization tends to be much more conducive to creating a permanent peasant class.
4) many american states are already as "socialist" as europe's, and have large scale costly social programs, some with very dubious results and serious side effects, but it's still nothing on either side of the Atlantic which classifies really as socialism. The European parties involved are generally not socialist parties, and this sort of stuff tends to fall much more into the category of social safety net more than social engineering.
A fair comparison would be a like comparison. For the US you would need another large scale federal system like the USSR to compare it to, a comparison the proponents never care to make. For small states, comparing statewide policies of Hungary vs. Iowa or something like that would be fair, I don't know if it's been done. I know that there's a mobility problem in Iowa that has been the result of farm subsidies, say what you will about that.
But the most obvious comparison to me would be one where capitalists have complete control vs. one of similar demographics whirr socialists have complete control, and particularly where this has been true for a while. Neither side gets credit for inheriting someone else's success.
I think North Korea vs. South Korea; East Germany vs. West Germany; North Yemen vs. South Yemen; Zimbabwe vs. Tanzania or Botswana; the D.R. Congo vs. The Rep of Congo; SSR China vs. SE China vs. Japan; Syria vs. Turkey or Iran; Albania vs. Italy. Sure, I'll grant Haiti vs. Cuba in the other direction, but then consider Cuba vs. Miami. I'm pretty sure of where the balance of this one falls.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Why not? That would be a big improvement over what we've got now!
Better not be Socialism.
Oh come on!
Socialism, the Marxist 'state owns the means of production' version you must be espousing if you desire the downfall of Capitalism, has never worked. In countries where it has been applied, it has generally led to a concentration of both political and economic power in the hands of a privileged few that even the most greedy capitalist couldn't dream about. It's led to planned famines, labor camps, purges, round-ups of dissidents or just those not sufficiently doctrinaire, massive forced relocations, massive secret police forces and a large percentage of the population informing on the rest, betrayal of allies, crappy industrial products, and bad science.
SignyM, I get the feeling that you are hauntingly like the progressives and intellectuals in the U.S. and France preceding and following WWII, who were so in love with the ivory tower ideal of Socialism that they categorically refused to believe that there were purges, forced labor camps and gulags in Soviet Russia, despite the testimony of folks who'd been there, because it spoiled their fantasy.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Which is pretty irrelevant to anything I posted, but if you feel the need to grasp at straws to defend capitalism feel free.
Actually you're doing pretty well for me. The European welfare states you cite as so successful all have largely Capitalist, free-market economies. Many are reducing state ownership of the industries the government once had. Not one has what could be called a Socialist economy.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Which is pretty irrelevant to anything I posted, but if you feel the need to grasp at straws to defend capitalism feel free.
Actually you're doing pretty well for me. The European welfare states you cite as so successful all have largely Capitalist, free-market economies. Many are reducing state ownership of the industries the government once had. Not one has what could be called a Socialist economy.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
I see we're playing the game where you make things up and claim them to be true
. It is, for the record, very telling that rather than react to what I said, you strawman it and go off on a tangent. Did I mention anything about Socialist economies? I believe I did not. Thanks for acknowledging I'm right on just about every point I guess...The States you claim are capitalist are in fact mixed economies. For all your hand waving and evidence-less claims, not a one of them has a Capitalist economy, rather a mixed economy, which is by definition a mixture of capitalist and socialist economic principles.
Still you haven't answered my question, how is that national debt, the one that had to be expanded to stop capitalism collapsing under it's own weight?
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CIT: Straw-manning is Geezer's stock-in-trade.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I probably don't need to point out that nowhere is a free-market in place anymore. Which, honestly, would have it's own brand of problems. Businessmen/women in general will have more money than the consumers/employees in the population, and more money means more ability to suppress any bad information that might discourage the public from buying. Even on a local level this can be true, so the trick is figuring out how to keep businesses small enough and local enough to make them answerable to market forces. Or, if you remove the idea of a market from the equation, democratically answerable to the public.
I don't necessarily think a mandate on how big a business can be would be the answer, granted that would get it done in a hurry, but I think large businesses are ultimately unsustainable. I think eventually that better understanding of economic forces will have people opt for smaller, more community friendly business. If the end goal is to make sure your family and future generations are taken care of for a long time, that's really the only way to go.
Regulations protect the public, and are important, at the same time they might prevent the business world from having the necessary epiphanies that would stop these abuses from happening. And when regulation fails, when regulation becomes friendly or slip shod, well. We are stagnant, and we don't seem to be learning from our mistakes. But we also don't have any really good methods to limit damage to the public when something does go wrong, economically, mechanically, or product-wise.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So anyway, to answer your question: I think I know what we SHOULD do, what I'm not sure about is exactly how to get there from here. As I have said many many times over, I think the interim economic answer is "cooperatives" and the interim political answer is "democracy", and the backbone is "non-commercial communication" (I know Geezer will dismiss as quickly as he dismisses "socialism".) But the long answer is more complex.
First of all, you cannot eliminate "government". Government performs functions which a "marketplace" never can and never will: broad-scope vision, conflict resolution, blue-sky research. And sometimes that government is going to have to be "big" government solving "big" problems like global climate change and open-ocean depletion. Even if the economy consisted of cooperatives operating in a competitive environment, cooperatives would STILL tend towards maximally-efficient monopolies. But efficient monopolies are unstable: they concentrate capital and are sensitive to even small disruptions (like the fire in a plant in Japan which caused the world supply of capacitor resins to disappear for three months). So there has to be a "firewall" between the economy and its own worst trends, because that "firewall" doesn't naturally exist in a capital-based economy.
In the best sense, government would represent community working groups dedicated to solving specific problems, even if that working group is international fishermen solving open-ocean depletion.
BTW: There is a book which details how working groups manage the problems of the commons- in one example how Swiss herder cooperatives manage common-pasture rights. The title and author escape me but I will try to find it. The key to problem resolution is direct communication. However, I'm not sure if this model applies to problems which have more than a monkey-sphere of actors, so more procedures would prolly have to be created.
There are still many remaining questions:
How do we get "there" from "here"? And what are the long-term solutions to capital concentration and hierarchy formation?
As far as cooperatives are concerned, the biggest problem right now is that private banks control the flow of money. Having worked with a guy who was in several cooperatives, he says even cooperatives with solid business plans have a hard time getting loans bc banks rightly see cooperatives as a long-term threat to their business model. One of the reasons why Mondragon is so successful is because it has its own bank. So cooperatives need to create alternate funding: perhaps their own cooperative bank. Ultimately, they might even create their own Nonbank International Capital Exchange. (NICE. ) Ultimately, the problems of monopolism and concentration of capital might be found in better ways to create and exchange capital, or do away with it altogether.
In terms of government: You DO have the power to gain control of government. Unlike China, this is a democracy. Rather than tearing government down right away, you should use government to reform corporations FIRST. Sequence is important. Like the old joke says It's not ready, fire, aim. And trust me, if you can successfully use government to chip away at corporations, you will have ALREADY solved many of the problem that we currently have with government!
Finally, communication. There is something both seductive and dangerous in broadcast media (and alas, also in the virtual world as a whole, which distances people from authentic experience).
Anyway, I'm kind running out of time. I'll have to pick this up later, but I want to leave you with this thought: What I'm proposing isn't a long-term solution to the problem of relentless economic integration, collectivization, and concentration of capital, which is as a permanent trend in any capital-based economy. The only "natural" firewalls to these trends are distance and disaster. As fuels become more scarce, distance may re-localize economies. (Goods and people need to move as freely as capital for fully-integrate
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Government performs functions which a "marketplace" never can and never will: broad-scope vision, conflict resolution, blue-sky research.
Most of these go towards military applications. :x
Probably why space travel research is petering out. That, and they realized that sending people away from earth eliminates commercial control over them.
In a non-market system I would expect you'd still end up with a lot of advances just being made with people who have the curiosity and interest in the field.
I also wonder just how much of the current scientific advances were private versus government. There's some dispute over which invented the internet, for example. Both sides of the debate seem to have a vested interest in claiming they did the most work: seems to have been more of a joint effort, really, or analogous work being done at the same time to address similar problems.
Calculus was invented twice in history, and supposedly with no overlap in the research involved. Sometimes there's just a need that comes up in the course of scientific/technological progress.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In a democracy, there is no excuse for letting government get away from your interests and your goals. The mechanism is there for change.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And again, we're not a democracy. An oligarchy is probably closer to what we have in practice.
Quote:
BTW: There is a book which details how working groups manage the problems of the commons- in one example how Swiss herder cooperatives manage common-pasture rights. The title and author escape me but I will try to find it. The key to problem resolution is direct communication. However, I'm not sure if this model applies to problems which have more than a monkey-sphere of actors, so more procedures would prolly have to be created.
Why not? Even in government, you only have a monkey sphere of actors involved, the problem is they're making all the decisions and they've got all the power and they're more than a little in bed with the corporations they're supposed to regulate.
The only way this does work is if every monkey sphere has approximately equal say so in the decisions they make. Which to me means no government.
Take down the corporations, you take down the government. This at least we agree on. They're propping each other up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I see we're playing the game where you make things up and claim them to be true
Oh. Hi Mike.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Oh. Hi Mike.
Hi Rap.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
First, few European social welfare states have higher GDP per capita that the U.S. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capit
a
The U.S does very well in these tables for a country of its size I've always thought (all the countries above it are very small), so there's something in U.S-style capitalism.
But looking at social mobility statistics (or any social statistics: prison populations, health/obesity, abortions/teen pregnancy etc.), there is something in European style social-economic policies.
Irresponsible spending is irresponsible spending, whether Southern EU welfare states do it, or Ronald Reagan and George W Bush does it...
I personally think Germany (West) is a good model: excellent public/social services, and the social justice that comes with that: but still a competitive, vibrant, diverse economy. Note that the statistics are skewed against the West German capitalist model because of the large burden it has had of absorbing the weak socialist East German economy.
So I personally pine for something like Germany. Citizen as a Guardian reader, probably pines for something like Sweden. I'm not sure what liberals in Sweden pine after.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why not jack the open-source community's social dynamic and apply it to government ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You mean, a meritocracy? Problem is, there is no accountability to the general public. In addition, the coordinators (those who take care of version control and basic philosophy) are actually few and far between. Linus STILL has a big say in how Linux is implemented.
But maybe if you give me some examples of how you see that working, I could give it some more concrete thought.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
The U.S does very well in these tables for a country of its size I've always thought (all the countries above it are very small), so there's something in U.S-style capitalism.
It does, but I'd argue that's it's more to do with the fact that the US was the only industrial power completely untouched by the Second World War at home. So while everyone else was rebuilding, the US was the only country with a manufacturing base capable of supplying materials to rebuild with. The US has been riding that wave ever since, and now that countries are recovering from the War it's lead is diminishing. I'd also say that if all the GDP is really held by the top 1%, and everyone else gets next to nothing, and can't hope to improve their social standing, then GDP per capita is pretty much completely meaningless.
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I personally think Germany (West) is a good model: excellent public/social services, and the social justice that comes with that: but still a competitive, vibrant, diverse economy. Note that the statistics are skewed against the West German capitalist model because of the large burden it has had of absorbing the weak socialist East German economy.
East Germany was Communist. Communism and Socialism are equivalent in the same way that Corporatism and Capitalism are equivalent. And I agree mostly, but West Germany has more regulation of it's private sector than Britain or the US, and plenty of Social Programs as well.
I'd be perfectly happy with a German system, I worked out there for awhile with British Forces: if I can get 3 litre bottles of Vodka and 85 pence packs of cigarettes on NAAFI rations again I'll be even happier. There are a fair few cultural differences between us though, which could change the outlook. People in Germany dig snow out from the pavement in front of their homes because they think it's their responsibility, not because the Government tells them too for instance. Or how long do you think a cigarette vending machine bolted to a lamp post would last on a British street?
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
So I personally pine for something like Germany. Citizen as a Guardian reader, probably pines for something like Sweden. I'm not sure what liberals in Sweden pine after.
I don't read the Guardian, actually. If I read any newspaper it's usually the independent.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Why not jack the open-source community's social dynamic and apply it to government ?
-F
It's not exactly the root of all perfection. It works great for FOSS for the most part, but there's also times it doesn't work well at all *cough*The GIMP*cough*.
I've heard plenty of times when someone has made a bug or problem with a GPL program known, they're shouted down because the developers "don't owe them anything". I think that would be a step down rather than up from democracy where the politicians at least have to throw a few breadcrumbs the electorates way on occasion.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
>_>
I use the GIMP. It's not the best ever, but it's functional.
And free. Monetarily and hassle-wise.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
>_>
I use the GIMP. It's not the best ever, but it's functional.
And free. Monetarily and hassle-wise.
Lots of things aren't the best ever, but Functional. Windows for instance.
The Gimps interface is backwards, tools don't do what they should (Move doesn't move things, for instance), there's glaring omissions (no layer groups for one), and it's a pig of a program to use on a platform with a single desktop. To be fair the next release is supposed to be addressing those issues, but it's taken years for the developers to listen to the people who use it to get it done.
Not in the least it's support from graphics tablets is awful, on Windows I found myself having to set up my Watcom every time I started the damn thing, on Linux it doesn't like moving from the painting area to the menus. Every other program I use, Closed or Open Source, just works with graphics tablets, so I don't buy that it's really that hard.
You point out these issues and the Developers either tell you their way is better, they owe you nothing, or "you'd realise why it works that way if you looked at the code". It's a brilliant example of the wrong attitude in FOSS development.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Communism and Socialism are equivalent in the same way that Corporatism and Capitalism are equivalent.
Cit, I see where you're coming from on this one
IMHO,, corporatism comes about when you have a large scale socialist govt. And a large scale corporate private sector, and nothing keeping the two apart. Since we know corporatism is corporation+govt, and that this si driven by corporate greed (or govt desire to dodge accountability by morphing into corporate form, ie blackwater security) then there has to be a govt budget worth stealing, and a fair power base there.
Communism IMHO happens when socialism has no competition, which is typically because it has used govt power to force out any possible competition.
Capitalism has some very very serious flaws, but it doesn't auto morph into corporatism.
Its a conundrum. Capitalism run amok isn't stopped by govt regulation because govt powerful enough to regulate is govt worth taking over via corporatism. Communism is govt. Run amok, and without a working private escort, or even private sector (ipad also runs amok, converting sector to escort;) ) without a working private sector with the protections of something like the 14th, you're back to govt. Takeover again.
We have a problem right now with "mountaintop removal" and also "franking." the thing is, the companies doing the mining that is destroying the land don't even own the land they're mining. It's much like the ocean drilling, fishing, etc, and other things such as logging in national forests. There's no strong concept of law here, because govt will look the other way. This seems to go on regardless of govt structure, with socialist leaning capitalism in brazil, or pure socialism like in Venezuela, or Chinese communism or whatever it is that we have here in the US. Listening to the lies of Rand Paul, moron du jour, we would likely have this problem in pure capitalism
Anyone have any ideas on this?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem
Re, open source govt, have you read aristideds "eyes of the heart"? It's a good take on human economy.
There is a problem with the idea, which is such a society would only go as far as it thinks it has to, and you likely wouldn't get the kind of disaster preparedness you see in japan.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow. This thread is one big liberal circle jerk....Carry on.....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Really? I thought it was more like intra-faction warfare, only they're kind of just throwing erasers at each other.
Liberalism is technically pro-capitalist, or at least in the classical sense. This is an argument between an anti-capitalist cross-section of the left wing spectrum, with you and Geezer throwing in the occasional pro-capitalist right wing comments, and DT is fairly centrist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Of course it does. I know you're a small businessman... a farmer to be exact, and you quite naturally think small business is important.
Capitalism has some very very serious flaws, but it doesn't auto morph into corporatism.
If we could have small-business capitalism that STAYED small-business capitalism, there wouldn't be any problem. But capitalism has already morphed in the corporatism... it started roughly 150 years ago in the USA... and has steadily marched on ever since, towards bigger and bigger business... regional, then national, then international. And while small businesses exist and indeed employ large numbers of people, it is large businesses like auto manufacturers, banks, insurances, utilities etc. which dominate our daily lives and the overall health of the economy.
Ignoring the presence and effect of corporatism/ monopolism in capitalism falls pretty much into the realm of "wishful thinking". If you really want to do something about the worst excesses of capitalism, you have to take control of the biggest players. I know that's a tough assignment and a lot of hard work, but until you accept that you'll be leaving the field to them and contenting yourself with playing outside of the ballpark.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig,
Read my earlier post on how communism and corporatism happen, it was addressed to citizen, I think we were reaching an accord there.
Also, re the first post on this thread, I am going to hedge my bets on item 3. Hospitals are not strictly speaking free market enterprises, they are already some sort of business government merger like universities. On drug companies, you have a point, but i think most of the damage, or at least an equal share is being done by hospitals. If socialized medicine is the alternative, we need to more closely examine the death rates in some of the large scale socialized operations, since that's what we would get here in the US. Remember I posted in the last healthcare debate, and all previous ones, that I have no problem with healthcare being given over to the states. It's the Feds I don't want in my healthcare. Ideally, id want it to be small and local, or self driven, or both.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Silly bytemite, a kaneman sees what she wants to see, not whats actually there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I see we're playing the game where you make things up and claim them to be true
Oh. Hi Mike.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Hi, Kaneman.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME