Brilliantly illustrated analysis of why Capatilism screws us.

[Anonymous]

This is why I bother with you at all, because, deep down, you are a almost a nice guy.

I'm an academic and, therefore, just a pseudo-intellectual and a prostitute. Cheers.

Oh, I bet that just killed you to write that.

Cheers to you.

 

[rhubroma]

Oh, I bet that just killed you to write that.

Cheers to you.

Not at all, because that pretty much sums it up.

 

[rhubroma]

PS Scott SoCal:

The only thing I have to comment on is regarding this tastless and rather stupid comment you made, where you tried to be ironic, though only succeeded in making yourself look like an a$$:

I need more income over a long period of time to live more comfortably. Moreover, I deserve it (morally speaking of course). I demand this of my customers and I'm sure they will all agree and comply.

I don't know what type of work you do, but if it isn't exploited by some corporate entity in the way that her illustrations are, then you have no moral cause to anything.

I don't think that workers should be given anything beyond what they are morally due. I am also quite certain though about what I consider moral obligation and what you do are completely different animals. But what is undeniable is that there are many cases, however, like this one, where a moral obligation is not being respected. And this is because the interests of the powerful are allowed to dictate practice at the expense of the weak.

The problem with the neoliberal capitalism that we have now, is that the whole question of moral obligation on the part of those with capital toward those that don't has been completely removed from the system. And this is a fanatical form of capitalism that is not tolerable and hopefully not sustainable either.

And it isn't as simple as taking this to court, believe me, or we would have already gone that route.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

For the purposes of illustration, this is a strawman

No it isn't. Neoliberal philosophy is 'monotheistic' as it were: there is nothing but the market; all value comes only from market actions.

My beloved LA Lakers suffered their first defeat of the season a few days ago due to a couple of bad calls by the referees. So the system let them down. That and they didn't play much defense, but mostly it was the system.

I don't understand this at all, but I am sorry to hear that. I don't think you can ever really blame the referee - no one ever claims the referee helped them win. This choice of yours of picking a sporting anecdote to demonstrate unfairness - HA! By relying on sporting analogies you construct the world as a game to be won or lost, thereby limiting your frame of reference. If you want to talk real high stakes, real tragedy, try an analogy involving a refugee uprooted from their invaded country.

You wanna throw a pity party for yourself then go right ahead. If what you choose to do is point to all of the injustices in the world then you will be extremely busy (and depressed).

You were quick to roll out this chestnut. Pity party? What strikes me most about this admonishment is its fear and utter lack of courage. So you admit there's suffering in the world, but your response is to damn everyone and look after yourself. Who's going to help you when you need it? Further to this, your philosophy seems to indicate you're happier joining the perpetuators of the problems rather than doing something about them. Your outlook is more than merely cynical or pessimistic. It's retrograde and pathological.

Point to something better.... lead the way.

If we're all leaders who's going to follow? This quote stands unsteadily with your previous one; on one hand turn away and shun the weak, but stand strongly only for yourself. That's a lonely, impoverished world you're constructing.

But the greatest inconsistency - or maybe just pure weakness - is that you seem to claim you're both powerful enough to effect change (ie looking after yourself and leading others) yet so impotent as to be able to do nought for anyone else. That's some real sermon on the mount thinking on your behalf.

You're not pointing to anything better, you're not leading the way at all. Perhaps you're self-employed and have managed to do alright for yourself. Prescribing your example for everyone else is naive and soaked in self-congratulation. If you really want to help, if you really want to lead the way, put yourself on the line for someone - the rewards are even greater.

 

[Spare Tyre]

I have a sister in law who lives in Dallas ... nice house in a fancy suburb, a lot of servants (nanny, cleaners, gardeners etc) whom she pays peanuts.

She recently moved to this nice house in a nice whitebread suburb -- it's almost a gated community, I gather, a ghetto of rich, white people -- because the school district her child was previously zoned to was terrible: gun detectors at the gates, high drop out rate, big drug problems. Terrible, no way her precious child could go there.

It doesn't seem to have dawned on her that when she & her fellow fortunates pay other people peanuts for work they wouldn't deign to do themselves (let alone at the rate they pay) just because they can, then the result will be No go areas, and schools to avoid, and a host of other social problems that congeal and worsen as generations pass.

It is still the case that the most critical determinants in a person's life are where and to whom he/she is born.

**

The logic of capitalism is for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer (as has been happening for decades). Frankly, I don't see what is particularly good about this.

Our current version of capitalism has become a big ponzi scheme, just holding together until some small shift renders the whole thing a collapsed house of cards.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Hmmm. I guess I don't know what 'conservative' means then.

http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/

And the right wing editorial board;

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html

And then there's Krugman...

LOL, I guess you have a very American-centric view of the political spectrum, by which I mean that American political policies and views are in general so far to the right that relatively speaking the NYT could seem left.

To many of us from other places and, I think, to people with an education in politics, the idea that the NYT is left-wing is absurd.

 

[Anonymous]

LOL, I guess you have a very American-centric view of the political spectrum, by which I mean that American political policies and views are in general so far to the right that relatively speaking the NYT could seem left.

To many of us from other places and, I think, to people with an education in politics, the idea that the NYT is left-wing is absurd.

I guess you have a very American-centric view of the political spectrum

You got me there. I live in the USA so by that standard I would be considered American-centric (as opposed to something other than that??)

I confess I don't have an education in politics so your opinion of what is left or right, in your strict acedemic sense, is probably much more important and accurate than mine.

You can read for yourself the resumes of the editorial board of the NY Times. Hardly right wing. In the USA, there is a long standing tradition of freedom of the press and as such, the press has a moral responsibility to be neutral in their reporting.

The NY Times is not neutral and has not been for generations. To think other than this is, in your words, absurd.

 

[Anonymous]

PS Scott SoCal:

The only thing I have to comment on is regarding this tastless and rather stupid comment you made, where you tried to be ironic, though only succeeded in making yourself look like an a$$:

I need more income over a long period of time to live more comfortably. Moreover, I deserve it (morally speaking of course). I demand this of my customers and I'm sure they will all agree and comply.

I don't know what type of work you do, but if it isn't exploited by some corporate entity in the way that her illustrations are, then you have no moral cause to anything.

I don't think that workers should be given anything beyond what they are morally due. I am also quite certain though about what I consider moral obligation and what you do are completely different animals. But what is undeniable is that there are many cases, however, like this one, where a moral obligation is not being respected. And this is because the interests of the powerful are allowed to dictate practice at the expense of the weak.

The problem with the neoliberal capitalism that we have now, is that the whole question of moral obligation on the part of those with capital toward those that don't has been completely removed from the system. And this is a fanatical form of capitalism that is not tolerable and hopefully not sustainable either.

And it isn't as simple as taking this to court, believe me, or we would have already gone that route.

I don't know what type of work you do, but if it isn't exploited by some corporate entity in the way that her illustrations are, then you have no moral cause to anything.

No, I'm not too badly exploited by a corporate entity, but am ravaged by a few governmental one's. So, yes, I'm morally entitled for you to feel pity for me and for me to make moral demands.

This is a fanatical form of suffocation by a clueless beuracracy that is not tolerable and clearly (I live in California, which has been compared unfavorably to Greece by none other than the Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman) not sustainable.

 

[Anonymous]

No it isn't. Neoliberal philosophy is 'monotheistic' as it were: there is nothing but the market; all value comes only from market actions.




I don't understand this at all, but I am sorry to hear that. I don't think you can ever really blame the referee - no one ever claims the referee helped them win. This choice of yours of picking a sporting anecdote to demonstrate unfairness - HA! By relying on sporting analogies you construct the world as a game to be won or lost, thereby limiting your frame of reference. If you want to talk real high stakes, real tragedy, try an analogy involving a refugee uprooted from their invaded country.



You were quick to roll out this chestnut. Pity party? What strikes me most about this admonishment is its fear and utter lack of courage. So you admit there's suffering in the world, but your response is to damn everyone and look after yourself. Who's going to help you when you need it? Further to this, your philosophy seems to indicate you're happier joining the perpetuators of the problems rather than doing something about them. Your outlook is more than merely cynical or pessimistic. It's retrograde and pathological.



If we're all leaders who's going to follow? This quote stands unsteadily with your previous one; on one hand turn away and shun the weak, but stand strongly only for yourself. That's a lonely, impoverished world you're constructing.

But the greatest inconsistency - or maybe just pure weakness - is that you seem to claim you're both powerful enough to effect change (ie looking after yourself and leading others) yet so impotent as to be able to do nought for anyone else. That's some real sermon on the mount thinking on your behalf.

You're not pointing to anything better, you're not leading the way at all. Perhaps you're self-employed and have managed to do alright for yourself. Prescribing your example for everyone else is naive and soaked in self-congratulation. If you really want to help, if you really want to lead the way, put yourself on the line for someone - the rewards are even greater.

I don't understand this at all, but I am sorry to hear that. I don't think you can ever really blame the referee - no one ever claims the referee helped them win. This choice of yours of picking a sporting anecdote to demonstrate unfairness - HA! By relying on sporting analogies you construct the world as a game to be won or lost, thereby limiting your frame of reference. If you want to talk real high stakes, real tragedy, try an analogy involving a refugee uprooted from their invaded country.

See, you are getting the hang of this. I don't think you can ever really blame the system. If you think the system is rigged, then how do you explain the success going on around you every minute of every day? If what you are looking for is perfection (where there is never a failure) then there is nothing anyone can do that will help you.

What strikes me most about this admonishment is its fear and utter lack of courage

I have heard this before. I get out of bed everyday, work hard, try to do the right things in life and enjoy myself and my family. I do what I can for my community and for people who are in genuine need for what I can do (which for me is more of my time than money).

Further to this, your philosophy seems to indicate you're happier joining the perpetuators of the problems rather than doing something about them. Your outlook is more than merely cynical or pessimistic. It's retrograde and pathological.

I'm really more interested in controlling what is in my control, i.e., my actions, how I relate to others, doing what I can to help where I can. Beyond that, I'm a big believer in free-will. If the homless guy that sleeps in front of my office chose not to finish high school and panhandle on the streets for his existance then I'm not going to spend much time trying to get him to live a more "acceptable" life style (yes, I talk to the guy and yes I buy him a cup of coffee when I see him and ,yes, he brags about how high on crack he was the night before).

You're not pointing to anything better, you're not leading the way at all.

You may be right. I'll just keep paying my taxes, taking care of my customers and keep trying to grow my business. I find this has many more rewards than whining on an internet forum about how unjust the world is.

 

[buckwheat]

I'm really more interested in controlling what is in my control, i.e., my actions, how I relate to others, doing what I can to help where I can. Beyond that, I'm a big believer in free-will. If the homless guy that sleeps in front of my office chose not to finish high school and panhandle on the streets for his existance then I'm not going to spend much time trying to get him to live a more "acceptable" life style (yes, I talk to the guy and yes I buy him a cup of coffee when I see him and ,yes, he brags about how high on crack he was the night before).




You may be right. I'll just keep paying my taxes, taking care of my customers and keep trying to grow my business. I find this has many more rewards than whining on an internet forum about how unjust the world is.

I strongly suggest you do some study on this concept.

Many of the giants of all fields of endeavor have studied it.

I assure you, as a friend, you're missing a lot.

I could tell you, but, that's going to be my bread and butter, and will take at least a 2 hour movie.

Really, seriously, have a go at the free will "argument."

Will be the best thing you ever get.... maybe bogged down in?

 

[Anonymous]

I strongly suggest you do some study on this concept.

Many of the giants of all fields of endeavor have studied it.

I assure you, as a friend, you're missing a lot.

I could tell you, but, that's going to be my bread and butter, and will take at least a 2 hour movie.

Really, seriously, have a go at the free will "argument."

Will be the best thing you ever get.... maybe bogged down in?

I don't have the energy to get real deep into the free-will debate. My main point was to suggest that people have a right to make poor decisions and live the way they choose (within the rules of course).

We also have an obligation to deal with the ramifications of the decisions we make.

I realize many, many people are in poor situations through no fault of their own. I draw a distinction between those that have been screwed and those that screw themselves.

 

[buckwheat]

I don't have the energy to get real deep into the free-will debate. My main point was to suggest that people have a right to make poor decisions and live the way they choose (within the rules of course).

We also have an obligation to deal with the ramifications of the decisions we make.

I realize many, many people are in poor situations through no fault of their own. I draw a distinction between those that have been screwed and those that screw themselves.

I understand the former, but, you are foreclosing on any real understanding of the latter. (bolded)

 

[The Hitch]

I also read how much of an admirer he is of Karl Marx.

Scott. I dont want to jump on the anti Scott bandwagon, but i just want to look at that 1 comment.

Being an admirer of Marx is, imo in and of itself not neccesarily such a bad thing.

So called Liberals these days do often defend Lenin, Castro, Che, and i agree that all these guys dont deserve such treatment. Lenin set up the NKVD, Castro is a dictator, and Che sent many innocent people into his prisons as well as the capitalists. They used to defend Stalin as well.

Marx on the other hand was not a dictator, didnt kill anyone and i think does not deserve this treatment.

Marx was a great intellectual, who quite simply got it wrong. Im Polish and My country was probably the greatest victim of Soviet Communism (for example, the people who saved Poland from the Nazis, were later taken by the Soviet police and shot, so that they wouldnt serve as an inspiration for others).

But Marx was not responsible for this. His works were valid. In his time, workers would be forced to work 11 hours a day for peanuts. Factory owners could take away pay, beat or even sexually assault workers and if the workers complained they would be fired. He was taking the side of the workers as many great thinkers did at the time. His stages idea was wrong, he believed Communism was destiny and this was wrong too. The Soviets based their model on him but at the same time, Marx did warn revolutionaries NOT to attempt such a revolution in a country like Russia which wasnt even industrialised at the time.

He was wrong in many ways and his ideas dont work, but he was nonetheless a great thinker who took the side of the less fortunate, made some top quality contributions to lieterature and he sure as hell didnt want a totalitarian dictatorship. I dont think theres anything wrong in admiring him.

 

[rhubroma]

No, I'm not too badly exploited by a corporate entity, but am ravaged by a few governmental one's. So, yes, I'm morally entitled for you to feel pity for me and for me to make moral demands.

This is a fanatical form of suffocation by a clueless beuracracy that is not tolerable and clearly (I live in California, which has been compared unfavorably to Greece by none other than the Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman) not sustainable.

There's a wiff of revolution in the air. I've got a hunch that something's coming that'll liven everything up again.

 

[Anonymous]

Scott. I dont want to jump on the anti Scott bandwagon, but i just want to look at that 1 comment.

Being an admirer of Marx is, imo in and of itself not neccesarily such a bad thing.

So called Liberals these days do often defend Lenin, Castro, Che, and i agree that all these guys dont deserve such treatment. Lenin set up the NKVD, Castro is a dictator, and Che sent many innocent people into his prisons as well as the capitalists. They used to defend Stalin as well.

Marx on the other hand was not a dictator, didnt kill anyone and i think does not deserve this treatment.

Marx was a great intellectual, who quite simply got it wrong. Im Polish and My country was probably the greatest victim of Soviet Communism (for example, the people who saved Poland from the Nazis, were later taken by the Soviet police and shot, so that they wouldnt serve as an inspiration for others).

But Marx was not responsible for this. His works were valid. In his time, workers would be forced to work 11 hours a day for peanuts. Factory owners could take away pay, beat or even sexually assault workers and if the workers complained they would be fired. He was taking the side of the workers as many great thinkers did at the time. His stages idea was wrong, he believed Communism was destiny and this was wrong too. The Soviets based their model on him but at the same time, Marx did warn revolutionaries NOT to attempt such a revolution in a country like Russia which wasnt even industrialised at the time.

He was wrong in many ways and his ideas dont work, but he was nonetheless a great thinker who took the side of the less fortunate, made some top quality contributions to lieterature and he sure as hell didnt want a totalitarian dictatorship. I dont think theres anything wrong in admiring him.

Hey, jump on the band wagon. It's all good.

I'm not condemning Marx. But it's instructive to look at who the Marxists are (and have been) and what their belief system is/was.

Hedges is probably not a Marxist as I think he's left of the basic tenants of Marxism.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert regarding Marx and I will defer to you as a judge of the quality of his contributions.

 

[Anonymous]

There's a wiff of revolution in the air. I've got a hunch that something's coming that'll liven everything up again.

Yep. What's coming is the people's realization of how expensive all the free sh!t we get from the government is.

 

[usedtobefast]

actually Marx was not wrong. the implementation of his ideas was.
Scott are you feeling the wrath? have a beer. American style capitalism is on it's way out. cheers.

 

[The Hitch]

There's a wiff of revolution in the air. I've got a hunch that something's coming that'll liven everything up again.

A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation - when the people have no desire on in the current way, and the govern can no longer govern in that way.
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov aka Lenin.

 

[Anonymous]

actually Marx was not wrong. the implementation of his ideas was.Scott are you feeling the wrath? have a beer. American style capitalism is on it's way out. cheers.

Well this reminds of the old adage, "If you're not a socialist by the time you are twenty, you have no heart. If you're not conservative by the time you are forty, you must be a teacher."

It also reminds me of Einstein's definition of insanity.

Btw, I'm not feeling any particular wrath with the possible exception of how easy it is to gain weight this time of year.

I think your prediction of American style Capitalism being on the way out is premature. But we shall see.

 

[Anonymous]

You got me there. I live in the USA so by that standard I would be considered American-centric (as opposed to something other than that??)

I confess I don't have an education in politics so your opinion of what is left or right, in your strict acedemic sense, is probably much more important and accurate than mine.

You can read for yourself the resumes of the editorial board of the NY Times. Hardly right wing. In the USA, there is a long standing tradition of freedom of the press and as such, the press has a moral responsibility to be neutral in their reporting.

The NY Times is not neutral and has not been for generations. To think other than this is, in your words, absurd.

There is your mistake. There is a difference between editorial staff and reporters. The reporters at the NYT are some of the best journalists in the business. Their professionalism has taken hits because of acts by an extreme minority of their reporters, but as a whole, they are reporters, not liberals. The WSJ is the same. The editorial staff are very conservative, but the actual reporters are not. Conservatives have become so enamored with Fox news, and what passes for "journalism" there, that they believe that is how it is done in the "lamestream media." For the most part, the major media outlets are owned by more conservative corporate influences, and the myth of the "liberal bias" is not fleshed out if you begin to also look at not just what the reporters are saying or writing, but THE STORIES THEY CHOOSE TO COVER. Sorry, but media outlets are for profit corporations, and have little to nothing to do with promoting a liberal agenda. They are promoting an agenda of getting the most people to read or watch. Those two pursuits are not the same thing.

And keep up the "government is satan" line of thinking. You guys are setting the table for a presidential run by Sarah Palin, and quite honestly, a populace stupid enough to elect her is a populace that is not worth being a part of.

 

[The Hitch]

There is your mistake. There is a difference between editorial staff and reporters. The reporters at the NYT are some of the best journalists in the business. Their professionalism has taken hits because of acts by an extreme minority of their reporters.

Its not just that. Id say theres something wrong with having a newspaper boast that its showing "all the news fit to print"

 

[Anonymous]

There is your mistake. There is a difference between editorial staff and reporters. The reporters at the NYT are some of the best journalists in the business. Their professionalism has taken hits because of acts by an extreme minority of their reporters, but as a whole, they are reporters, not liberals. The WSJ is the same. The editorial staff are very conservative, but the actual reporters are not. Conservatives have become so enamored with Fox news, and what passes for "journalism" there, that they believe that is how it is done in the "lamestream media." For the most part, the major media outlets are owned by more conservative corporate influences, and the myth of the "liberal bias" is not fleshed out if you begin to also look at not just what the reporters are saying or writing, but THE STORIES THEY CHOOSE TO COVER. Sorry, but media outlets are for profit corporations, and have little to nothing to do with promoting a liberal agenda. They are promoting an agenda of getting the most people to read or watch. Those two pursuits are not the same thing.

And keep up the "government is satan" line of thinking. You guys are setting the table for a presidential run by Sarah Palin, and quite honestly, a populace stupid enough to elect her is a populace that is not worth being a part of.

You end many of your posts with this sentiment. Dude, I'm in Cali. How the eff do you think I feel right now?

If you are going to argue that the slant of the NY Times is not left and that the Ed Board does not decide the direction of the publication, which stories are burried and which stories are not... then I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.

edit: Btw, if Palin keeps ascending the way she is right now she might beat Obama in a general. Believe me, I don't want to see Obama re-elected but I sincerely hope Palin stays on the sidelines.

 

[Anonymous]

Its not just that. Id say theres something wrong with having a newspaper boast that its showing "all the news fit to print"

That is marketing, not reporting.

And Scott, the actual articles are balanced. The editorials. are not. The problem is that all you ever hear from the right are about the editorials. You may believe you know what you are talking about, but I assure you that if you read an article and it appears to have a "liberal bias," it is because sometimes, reality has a liberal bias. Their reporters work by an oath that they, to the best of their ability, report the news, not their opinion. Their editorial writers are under no such ethic. Sorry, but if you read the paper, you would know this.

PS. BTW, how many days every week do you read the NYT to know what you are talking about?

 

[knewcleardaze]

There is your mistake. There is a difference between editorial staff and reporters. The reporters at the NYT are some of the best journalists in the business. Their professionalism has taken hits because of acts by an extreme minority of their reporters, but as a whole, they are reporters, not liberals. The WSJ is the same. The editorial staff are very conservative, but the actual reporters are not. Conservatives have become so enamored with Fox news, and what passes for "journalism" there, that they believe that is how it is done in the "lamestream media." For the most part, the major media outlets are owned by more conservative corporate influences, and the myth of the "liberal bias" is not fleshed out if you begin to also look at not just what the reporters are saying or writing, but THE STORIES THEY CHOOSE TO COVER. Sorry, but media outlets are for profit corporations, and have little to nothing to do with promoting a liberal agenda. They are promoting an agenda of getting the most people to read or watch. Those two pursuits are not the same thing.

And keep up the "government is satan" line of thinking. You guys are setting the table for a presidential run by Sarah Palin, and quite honestly, a populace stupid enough to elect her is a populace that is not worth being a part of.

This is what has me in a fright. The people generally deserve the leaders they have.

 

[The Hitch]

a presidential run by Sarah Palin ... elect her .

This is what has me in a fright. The people generally deserve the leaders they have.

Dont worry. This is not going to happen.