Brilliantly illustrated analysis of why Capatilism screws us.

[rhubroma]

Actually, I might buy the tee shirt because it directly reflects the conflict I have with the majority of Christians in the U.S. People who suggest that they are killing in the name of Jesus don't read the same thing in the words of Christ that I do. That is why I am so fond of the Jeffersonian Bible. When you extract just the words of Christ, ideas like the ones promoted by "The Family" have no basis. Christ was revolutionary not just in his message of grace (another concept most in my religion appear to completely misunderstand), but also in terms of society. In fact, the only recorded time (I recognize it is a fictional account to you, and I am fine with that because the message is my focal point) he lost his temper was with the money exchangers in the temple. I think the usage of his name to further conservative economic policy is just as abhorrent. You get no gripe from me over the posting.

It simply makes me wonder how mostly pacifist teachings of a Jewish man 2000 years ago regarding the immanent arrival of the Kingdom, can still have such political purchase in the America of today. And based upon such a self-serving and instrumental usage of them. I shall leave it at that.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

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

Why do you use that? I am with you on the issue. I am not sure but you was insulting me with that picture?

I thought the general group discussion was in agreement? I only wanted to ad my agreement. Sorry to have interrupted your conversation.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

It simply makes me wonder how mostly pacifist teachings of a Jewish man 2000 years ago regarding the immanent arrival of the Kingdom, can still have such political purchase in the America of today. And based upon such a self-serving and instrumental usage of them. I shall leave it at that.

I agree on this as well.

Just think what would happen if the prophet Mohammed was used and had the same political purchase. The United States would be a peace loving nation finally.

 

[rhubroma]

I agree on this as well.

Just think what would happen if the prophet Mohammed was used and had the same political purchase. The United States would be a peace loving nation finally.

Now that's an interesting hypothesis. Let's exchange one religious bigotry for another.

I'm not for an instrumental use of The Prophet, any more than I am for that of The Christ. In fact, I'd like all of your kind to disappear. For you are the problem, not the solution.

PS: I'm aware you are a troll.

 

[rhubroma]

To get the discussion back to capitalism...

Warren Buffet, finally a rich guy who has said something sensible.

Serene in his 80 years and also by his 53 billion dollars, Buffet, the third richest man on the planet, has announced that he has always paid too little taxes. Oh My!

Never has the IRS found in the 64,000 pages of fiscal documentation on Buffet even the slightest error, in what has been a Robin Hood scenario turned upside-down: the government makes those with too little pay too much and those with too much pay too little.

At a millionaires dinner to the cost of $4500 a person, just to hear who the Wall Street Journal calls the "Oracle of Omaha," Buffet announced: "Does it seem right that I will pay 17% taxes on earnings of 46,000,000 dollars for 2010, while my secretary pays 30% taxes on her 60,000 dollars earned."

With his wallet and a half century of investments behind him (beginning in 1962 with his first investment in the shirt manufacturer, Berkshire Hathway) and having always paid what was asked, Buffet speaks, therefore, with considerable authority. He can permit himself, consequently, to challenge the millionaire's and billionaire's philosophical orthodoxy that has also been implanted in the State's fiscal thinking since the 80's (and of which they still must try to keep a straight face today, especially after the Wall Street debacle, when preaching to the masses): namely, that reducing the taxes on the income of the rich helps the less fortunate. The so called "trickle down" theory espoused first by Reaganomics and faithfully maintained by Allen Greenspan during the following decades. Yet, as Buffet notes, the statistics on the distribution of wealth today have demonstrated that, since then, there is a frightfully growing gap in America between the haves and the have-nots. Since Reaganomics became dogma in the 80's the rich have gotten richer, while the middle and lower classes poorer: given that today 1% of Americans earn 24% of the nation's earnings - an all time record.

Buffet's thoughts, therefore, coincide with those of Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith's, who invites the rich to be more generous. This is not for the goodness of their souls, but as Galbraith cynically repeats: "I the rich guy sleep more tranquilly, if I know that surrounding my castle everybody has enough to eat and a roof over their heads." Well his might not be a very noble sentiment, but I suppose this is better than nothing.

The tax laws, Buffet maintains, are a grotesque joke, for which he that has lots of money can legitimately filter millions without taxation, while he that doesn't have charity foundations, trust funds, fiscal shields pays right down to the last cent. "It would be enough," Buffet claims to impose "a 5% additional tax on couples with earnings of $ 400,000 per year and up to finance social programs to help the less well-off, without significantly reducing the spendable income of the rich."

However Buffet still applauds the detested Washington government for its rapid intervention with Wall Street, which is precisely the reason why Obama's government received such a thrashing at the midterm elections. A government which was also accused by the most crazy of conservatives and schizophrenic of liberals alike with "stalinism."

Source: Vittorio Zucconi, la Repubblica (23, Nov. 2010)

 

[Cobblestones]

Yes, back to capitalism. Are the crises inherent to capitalism or can we avoid such Black Swan Events.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Yes, back to capitalism. Are the crises inherent to capitalism or can we avoid such Black Swan Events.

Oooooh, I hadn't seen that before. I like it.

From my vantage point (far side of the world) it seemed very early on in Obama's presidency that he went rapidly and terribly wrong by not taking the obvious (and very well-expressed) steps listed.

 

[Darryl Webster]

It occurs to me when discussing capitilism that theres a commen error that puts the discussion at cross meanings.
Others may disagree but I`d describe Capitilism as a system of economy, more to with mathamatics than a system of goveranance which presides over whatever chosen economic system it choose,s to adopt.
However Capitilism is so dominant that the governance has become subservient to the economy and social well being , the improvement of which should be the primery function of governance, places a distant 2nd at best in goverments priorities.
One might argue that it`s a chicken and egg situation...that you cant have the "best" social infrastructure without the strongest economy.
The evidence would point out that richest nations do not nescerily sit at the top of health and education tables and wealth and health are not mutualy inclusive. When quantifying what makes for a content society wealth is only one aspect not the only aspect.
Individualy, when we ponder our memories, for most peoples it`s the experiances we have that produce the best and most enjoyable of memories not the stuff we have.
That the number of obese peoples has now surpassed the number of people living in hunger ( still a disgustingly large number of people) sais everything that needs to be said about our slavish adherance to a system that puts profit before people and ALLOWS starvasion to continue. It`s actualy part of corperate regulation that it should put shareholders interests ahead of the public at large.
As mentioned in an earlier post the doc " The Corporation" does a great job in explaining the "mind" of corperate capitilism, parralleling it with DSM psychological diagnosis of pathololgy.
http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=46

One might argue that a corperation ISNT a "mind"..which is pretty obvious I guess..but remember this..under corperation law a corperation is assumed in law the status of personhood.
Normally a person with no mind is sectioned to the mental health unit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO2_9vvtfyk

 

[rhubroma]

It occurs to me when discussing capitilism that theres a commen error that puts the discussion at cross meanings.
Others may disagree but I`d describe Capitilism as a system of economy, more to with mathamatics than a system of goveranance which presides over whatever chosen economic system it choose,s to adopt.
However Capitilism is so dominant that the governance has become subservient to the economy and social well being , the improvement of which should be the primery function of governance, places a distant 2nd at best in goverments priorities.
One might argue that it`s a chicken and egg situation...that you cant have the "best" social infrastructure without the strongest economy.
The evidence would point out that richest nations do not nescerily sit at the top of health and education tables and wealth and health are not mutualy inclusive. When quantifying what makes for a content society wealth is only one aspect not the only aspect.
Individualy, when we ponder our memories, for most peoples it`s the experiances we have that produce the best and most enjoyable of memories not the stuff we have.
That the number of obese peoples has now surpassed the number of people living in hunger ( still a disgustingly large number of people) sais everything that needs to be said about our slavish adherance to a system that puts profit before people and ALLOWS starvasion to continue. It`s actualy part of corperate regulation that it should put shareholders interests ahead of the public at large.
As mentioned in an earlier post the doc " The Corporation" does a great job in explaining the "mind" of corperate capitilism, parralleling it with DSM psychological diagnosis of pathololgy.
http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=46

One might argue that a corperation ISNT a "mind"..which is pretty obvious I guess..but remember this..under corperation law a corperation is assumed in law the status of personhood.
Normally a person with no mind is sectioned to the mental health unit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO2_9vvtfyk

Sounds like we have passed from homo sapiens to homo economicus.

That is we are living in the economic phase of civilization, as opposed to a pre-economic, primitive state of nature of our remotest ancestors.

Presumably the turning point was the formation of the State and the invention of currency 2500 or so years ago.

Now the real question is will there be a post-economic stage of our social evolution? Given that as a species we have been evolving for quite a significantly longer period, I figure the odds are that, bar total self-annihilation or destruction by a natural cataclysm, in about another 40,000 years we might just get over this passing malady.

 

[Cobblestones]

Pure capitalism never works, and here I agree with Karl Marx's analysis.

Modern economic theory can describe reality much better with aspects of game theory, restricted markets, restricted informations etc. And there is no proof whatsoever that completely unregulated markets bring the best economic results. It is ludicrous to not expect that market players won't try to get an unfair advantage over others by restricting access or information, just to name two examples.

Anyway, if you look through history, there's plenty of indicators which do not have a one-to-one correspondence with GDP/population or similar economic numbers. Some of these indicators are: access to health care/public health in general, access to education/level of education in general, even military power and/or political influence. Neither, for that matter, has economics any one-to-one correspondence with political freedom (so forget all the BS about how economic development in China will eventually lead to democracy).

Furthermore, there's the pesky issue of finite resources/the environment. Growth in consumption will have to deal with peak oil, global warming, global extinction etc.

So, what is left? I'm afraid, not very much. It is pretty much clear that the primitive form of capitalism as advocated by, for instance, the teabaggers, is a grossly simplified economic model which will lead to disaster. In fact, the whole idiocy of libertarianism should go to the trash can of history, the sooner the better. What we need is a strong government, which can, based on the best economic science available, act quickly and impose good practices of risk assessment and mitigation, both for the economy, but also when it comes to the environment.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

Now that's an interesting hypothesis. Let's exchange one religious bigotry for another.

I'm not for an instrumental use of The Prophet, any more than I am for that of The Christ. In fact, I'd like all of your kind to disappear. For you are the problem, not the solution.

PS: I'm aware you are a troll.

well I was not advocating the use of religious bigotry. Just mentioning that it was a better more peacfull choice to go with than christian right wingers.

By the way why you attack me? That is against the rules. REPORTED.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I am with all of you guys. America is evil and should be stopped.

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

Why do you use that? I am with you on the issue. I am not sure but you was insulting me with that picture?

I thought the general group discussion was in agreement? I only wanted to ad my agreement. Sorry to have interrupted your conversation.

I agree on this as well.

Just think what would happen if the prophet Mohammed was used and had the same political purchase. The United States would be a peace loving nation finally.

Now that's an interesting hypothesis. Let's exchange one religious bigotry for another.

I'm not for an instrumental use of The Prophet, any more than I am for that of The Christ. In fact, I'd like all of your kind to disappear. For you are the problem, not the solution.

PS: I'm aware you are a troll.

well I was not advocating the use of religious bigotry. Just mentioning that it was a better more peacfull choice to go with than christian right wingers.

By the way why you attack me? That is against the rules. REPORTED.

I'm pretty sure it is not a reportable offense if it is a fact.

 

[mountaindew]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/reality_check_on_the_record_of.html

 

[rhubroma]

well I was not advocating the use of religious bigotry. Just mentioning that it was a better more peacfull choice to go with than christian right wingers.

By the way why you attack me? That is against the rules. REPORTED.

Report away!

If they were to silence me over this then we're doomed.

PS: You'll never win, because the world will simply do away with you and your kind one day.

In the immortal words of Pogo: "We have seen the enemy and he is us."

 

[Barrus]

No religious debate in here. Keep it on capitalism

 

[rhubroma]

No religious debate in here. Keep it on capitalism

Don't fret Barrus, mine was merely a closing parenthesis on a bothersome matter. Like swating an annoying mosquito on your leg during the hot summer.

The main problem with capitalism today, as I see it, is that it has been transformed from a mere economic theory into an all embracing poli-social praxis and ideology.

This has meant that the financialists have taken over the leadership role from the political class. This was painfully aparent by Washington's soft response to those financial culprits at Wall Street, to the great disadvantage and damage of the tax payers. And because from a poltical viewpoint the machine they represent is simply to big to fail, which demonstrates how politics is also dead. It's all about the economy, nothing else.

I'd dare say democracy is over. What we have is rather finance-ocracy, because the elected representatives aren't the one's really in power any longer, but a class of un-voted capitalists whose agenda dictates policy through and through.

 

[Barrus]

Rhub, didn't mean you specifically, just in general

Anyaw, I think it is clear to everybody that pure capitalism, as well as pure socialism does not work.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Don't fret Barrus, mine was merely a closing parenthesis on a bothersome matter. Like swating an annoying mosquito on your leg during the hot summer.

The main problem with capitalism today, as I see it, is that it has been transformed from a mere economic theory into an all embracing poli-social praxis and ideology.

This has meant that the financialists have taken over the leadership role from the political class. This was painfully aparent by Washington's soft response to those financial culprits at Wall Street, to the great disadvantage and damage of the tax payers. And because from a poltical viewpoint the machine they represent is simply to big to fail, which demonstrates how politics is also dead. It's all about the economy, nothing else.

I'd dare say democracy is over. What we have is rather finance-ocracy, because the elected representatives aren't the one's really in power any longer, but a class of un-voted capitalists whose agenda dictates policy through and through.

That's more-or-less how it seems to me too. Parliamentary democracy is a nice idea (and I take Hitch's point in the other thread about it being the antidote to sovereign- or state-based tyranny) but it seems to have been hijacked by faceless corporations and uber-capitalists.

 

[rhubroma]

Rhub, didn't mean you specifically, just in general

Anyaw, I think it is clear to everybody that pure capitalism, as well as pure socialism does not work.

Which is why we need a mixed and consequnetly balanced system. Not what we have today.

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/reality_check_on_the_record_of.html

The biggest problem is the laughable assertion that Obama is creating a command economy. It is a ridiculous claim made by people with a political agenda. Need I also remind the writer that it was his very ideas of what is best about capitalism that brought us to a devastating recession, and not those of the current president. Historical perspective once again is the bane of a conservatives life...

 

[Ferminal]

Pure capitalism never works, and here I agree with Karl Marx's analysis.

What are the key differences between Marx' capitalism and the orthodox capitalism?

 

[rhubroma]

What are the key differences between Marx' capitalism and the orthodox capitalism?

Marx' capitalism is an oxymoron.

Marx addressed the inherent conflict of capitalism, which I believe can be summed up by the necessity and dilemma of eternal economic growth, that constrains the holders of capital to find ever oppressive means to exploit labor (and in today's world, something which Marx could not have foreseen, ever creative and risky finance methods).

In the world of today bubbles and bursting bubbles only take place in the so called developed parts, where the market happens and where both a surpluss and difficency of capital exist simultaneously. This internal necessity coupled with the external reality of greed, leads to the cycles of boom and bust we have always gotten.

Whereas in the non-developed nations, where the market doesn't exist and where there is simply a difficency of captal, the crisis is of a quite different nature: which we call abject poverty.

Having the priviledge to draw capital from other sources, even speculative ones like equity on future GNP, the developed world can afford to take recourse to salvific measures during a periodic capitalist crisis like the fiscal maneuvers to address current one we have witnessed. Which means that capitalism doesn't ever realy solve its crisis, but merely moves them around geographically in a manner of speaking. The poor societies, by contrast, simply learn to cope with their misery.

But as far as these temporary remedies go, well, they are like taking medicine to diminish the symptoms of a chronic illness, without ever actually curing the disease.

As long as the disease remains under control seems to be the best way for the economists to address the issue, without, however, ever resolving the rebus of the fundamental problem. But what if the sickness, in the end, proves fatal?

Marx tried to thus cure a disease, or rather simply do away with it altogether, by offering another system which entirely eliminated its causes. But for Marxism to be achieved, human society must first have evolved beyond an economic civilization. But that is the stuff of visionaries I know.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Marx' capitalism is an oxymoron.

Marx addressed the inherent conflict of capitalism, which I believe can be summed up by the necessity and dilemma of eternal economic growth, that constrains the holders of capital to find ever oppressive means to exploit labor (and in today's world, something which Marx could not have foreseen, ever creative and risky finance methods).

In the world of today bubbles and bursting bubbles only take place in the so called developed parts, where the market happens and where both a surpluss and difficency of capital exist simultaneously. This internal necessity coupled with the external reality of greed, leads to the cycles of boom and bust we have always gotten.

Whereas in the non-developed nations, where the market doesn't exist and where there is simply a difficency of captal, the crisis is of a quite different nature: which we call abject poverty.

Having the priviledge to draw capital from other sources, even speculative ones like equity on future GNP, the developed world can afford to take recourse to salvific measures during a periodic capitalist crisis like the fiscal maneuvers to address current one we have witnessed. Which means that capitalism doesn't ever realy solve its crisis, but merely moves them around geographically in a manner of speaking. The poor societies, by contrast, simply learn to cope with their misery.

But as far as these temporary remedies go, well, they are like taking medicine to diminish the symptoms of a chronic illness, without ever actually curing the disease.

As long as the disease remains under control seems to be the best way for the economists to address the issue, without, however, ever resolving the rebus of the fundamental problem. But what if the sickness, in the end, proves fatal?

Marx tried to thus cure a disease, or rather simply do away with it altogether, by offering another system which entirely eliminated its causes. But for Marxism to be achieved, human society must first have evolved beyond an economic civilization. But that is the stuff of visionaries I know.

Great post!

 

[Ferminal]

Marx' capitalism is an oxymoron.

I was under the impression that Marx' world still had a capital class?

 

[rhubroma]

I was under the impression that Marx' world still had a capital class?

I'm not sure if he intended this or if his solution was more of a first step toward resolving the rebus, which is the Economy itself.

It has always seemed to me that Marx was a visionary and thus his plan, to have been realized, would have meant nothing less than a total change of heart (and mindset).

Otherwise, that is without a total chang of heart, it becomes merely instrumental as a means to effect a totalitarian regime. Exactly as what actually took place. But this is not the fault of Marx.