PDA

View Full Version : The Problem With a Capitalist Society



bueno bob
07-11-2009, 01:47 AM
Capitalism’s Self-inflicted Apocalypse
(posted in 2009)

After the overthrow of communist governments in Eastern Europe, capitalism was paraded as the indomitable system that brings prosperity and democracy, the system that would prevail unto the end of history.

The present economic crisis, however, has convinced even some prominent free-marketeers that something is gravely amiss. Truth be told, capitalism has yet to come to terms with several historical forces that cause it endless trouble: democracy, prosperity, and capitalism itself, the very entities that capitalist rulers claim to be fostering.

Plutocracy vs. Democracy

Let us consider democracy first. In the United States we hear that capitalism is wedded to democracy, hence the phrase, “capitalist democracies.” In fact, throughout our history there has been a largely antagonistic relationship between democracy and capital concentration. Some eighty years ago Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis commented, “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Moneyed interests have been opponents not proponents of democracy.

The Constitution itself was fashioned by affluent gentlemen who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to repeatedly warn of the baneful and dangerous leveling effects of democracy. The document they cobbled together was far from democratic, being shackled with checks, vetoes, and requirements for artificial super majorities, a system designed to blunt the impact of popular demands.

In the early days of the Republic the rich and well-born imposed property qualifications for voting and officeholding. They opposed the direct election of candidates (note, their Electoral College is still with us). And for decades they resisted extending the franchise to less favored groups such as propertyless working men, immigrants, racial minorities, and women.

Today conservative forces continue to reject more equitable electoral features such as proportional representation, instant runoff, and publicly funded campaigns. They continue to create barriers to voting, be it through overly severe registration requirements, voter roll purges, inadequate polling accommodations, and electronic voting machines that consistently “malfunction” to the benefit of the more conservative candidates.

At times ruling interests have suppressed radical publications and public protests, resorting to police raids, arrests, and jailings—applied most recently with full force against demonstrators in St. Paul, Minnesota, during the 2008 Republican National Convention.

The conservative plutocracy also seeks to rollback democracy’s social gains, such as public education, affordable housing, health care, collective bargaining, a living wage, safe work conditions, a non-toxic sustainable environment; the right to privacy, the separation of church and state, freedom from compulsory pregnancy, and the right to marry any consenting adult of one’s own choosing.

About a century ago, US labor leader Eugene Victor Debs was thrown into jail during a strike. Sitting in his cell he could not escape the conclusion that in disputes between two private interests, capital and labor, the state was not a neutral arbiter. The force of the state--with its police, militia, courts, and laws—was unequivocally on the side of the company bosses. From this, Debs concluded that capitalism was not just an economic system but an entire social order, one that rigged the rules of democracy to favor the moneybags.

Capitalist rulers continue to pose as the progenitors of democracy even as they subvert it, not only at home but throughout Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Any nation that is not “investor friendly,” that attempts to use its land, labor, capital, natural resources, and markets in a self-developing manner, outside the dominion of transnational corporate hegemony, runs the risk of being demonized and targeted as “a threat to U.S. national security.”

Democracy becomes a problem for corporate America not when it fails to work but when it works too well, helping the populace move toward a more equitable and livable social order, narrowing the gap, however modestly, between the superrich and the rest of us. So democracy must be diluted and subverted, smothered with disinformation, media puffery, and mountains of campaign costs; with rigged electoral contests and partially disfranchised publics, bringing faux victories to more or less politically safe major-party candidates.

Capitalism vs. Prosperity

The corporate capitalists no more encourage prosperity than do they propagate democracy. Most of the world is capitalist, and most of the world is neither prosperous nor particularly democratic. One need only think of capitalist Nigeria, capitalist Indonesia, capitalist Thailand, capitalist Haiti, capitalist Colombia, capitalist Pakistan, capitalist South Africa, capitalist Latvia, and various other members of the Free World--more accurately, the Free Market World.

A prosperous, politically literate populace with high expectations about its standard of living and a keen sense of entitlement, pushing for continually better social conditions, is not the plutocracy’s notion of an ideal workforce and a properly pliant polity. Corporate investors prefer poor populations. The poorer you are, the harder you will work—for less. The poorer you are, the less equipped you are to defend yourself against the abuses of wealth.

In the corporate world of “free-trade,” the number of billionaires is increasing faster than ever while the number of people living in poverty is growing at a faster rate than the world’s population. Poverty spreads as wealth accumulates.

Consider the United States. In the last eight years alone, while vast fortunes accrued at record rates, an additional six million Americans sank below the poverty level; median family income declined by over $2,000; consumer debt more than doubled; over seven million Americans lost their health insurance, and more than four million lost their pensions; meanwhile homelessness increased and housing foreclosures reached pandemic levels.

It is only in countries where capitalism has been reined in to some degree by social democracy that the populace has been able to secure a measure of prosperity; northern European nations such as Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark come to mind. But even in these social democracies popular gains are always at risk of being rolled back.

It is ironic to credit capitalism with the genius of economic prosperity when most attempts at material betterment have been vehemently and sometimes violently resisted by the capitalist class. The history of labor struggle provides endless illustration of this.

To the extent that life is bearable under the present U.S. economic order, it is because millions of people have waged bitter class struggles to advance their living standards and their rights as citizens, bringing some measure of humanity to an otherwise heartless politico-economic order.

A Self-devouring Beast

The capitalist state has two roles long recognized by political thinkers. First, like any state it must provide services that cannot be reliably developed through private means, such as public safety and orderly traffic. Second, the capitalist state protects the haves from the have-nots, securing the process of capital accumulation to benefit the moneyed interests, while heavily circumscribing the demands of the working populace, as Debs observed from his jail cell.

There is a third function of the capitalist state seldom mentioned. It consists of preventing the capitalist system from devouring itself. Consider the core contradiction Karl Marx pointed to: the tendency toward overproduction and market crisis. An economy dedicated to speedups and wage cuts, to making workers produce more and more for less and less, is always in danger of a crash. To maximize profits, wages must be kept down. But someone has to buy the goods and services being produced. For that, wages must be kept up. There is a chronic tendency—as we are seeing today—toward overproduction of private sector goods and services and underconsumption of necessities by the working populace.

In addition, there is the frequently overlooked self-destruction created by the moneyed players themselves. If left completely unsupervised, the more active command component of the financial system begins to devour less organized sources of wealth.

Instead of trying to make money by the arduous task of producing and marketing goods and services, the marauders tap directly into the money streams of the economy itself. During the 1990s we witnessed the collapse of an entire economy in Argentina when unchecked free marketeers stripped enterprises, pocketed vast sums, and left the country’s productive capacity in shambles. The Argentine state, gorged on a heavy diet of free-market ideology, faltered in its function of saving capitalism from the capitalists.

Some years later, in the United States, came the multi-billion-dollar plunder perpetrated by corporate conspirators at Enron, WorldCom, Harkin, Adelphia, and a dozen other major companies. Inside players like Ken Lay turned successful corporate enterprises into sheer wreckage, wiping out the jobs and life savings of thousands of employees in order to pocket billions.

These thieves were caught and convicted. Does that not show capitalism’s self-correcting capacity? Not really. The prosecution of such malfeasance— in any case coming too late—was a product of democracy’s accountability and transparency, not capitalism’s. Of itself the free market is an amoral system, with no strictures save caveat emptor.

In the meltdown of 2008-09 the mounting financial surplus created a problem for the moneyed class: there were not enough opportunities to invest. With more money than they knew what to do with, big investors poured immense sums into nonexistent housing markets and other dodgy ventures, a legerdemain of hedge funds, derivatives, high leveraging, credit default swaps, predatory lending, and whatever else.

Among the victims were other capitalists, small investors, and the many workers who lost billions of dollars in savings and pensions. Perhaps the premiere brigand was Bernard Madoff. Described as “a longstanding leader in the financial services industry,” Madoff ran a fraudulent fund that raked in $50 billion from wealthy investors, paying them back “with money that wasn’t there,” as he himself put it. The plutocracy devours its own children.

In the midst of the meltdown, at an October 2008 congressional hearing, former chair of the Federal Reserve and orthodox free-market devotee Alan Greenspan confessed that he had been mistaken to expect moneyed interests--groaning under an immense accumulation of capital that needs to be invested somewhere--to suddenly exercise self-restraint.

The classic laissez-faire theory is even more preposterous than Greenspan made it. In fact, the theory claims that everyone should pursue their own selfish interests without restraint. This unbridled competition supposedly will produce maximum benefits for all because the free market is governed by a miraculously benign “invisible hand” that optimizes collective outputs. (“Greed is good.”)

Is the crisis of 2008-09 caused by a chronic tendency toward overproduction and hyper-financial accumulation, as Marx would have it? Or is it the outcome of the personal avarice of people like Bernard Madoff? In other words, is the problem systemic or individual? In fact, the two are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism breeds the venal perpetrators, and rewards the most unscrupulous among them. The crimes and crises are not irrational departures from a rational system, but the converse: they are the rational outcomes of a basically irrational and amoral system.

Worse still, the ensuing multi-billion dollar government bailouts are themselves being turned into an opportunity for pillage. Not only does the state fail to regulate, it becomes itself a source of plunder, pulling vast sums from the federal money machine, leaving the taxpayers to bleed.

Those who scold us for “running to the government for a handout” are themselves running to the government for a handout. Corporate America has always enjoyed grants-in-aid, loan guarantees, and other state and federal subventions. But the 2008-09 “rescue operation” offered a record feed at the public trough. More than $350 billion was dished out by a right-wing lame-duck Secretary of the Treasury to the biggest banks and financial houses without oversight--not to mention the more than $4 trillion that has come from the Federal Reserve. Most of the banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of New York Mellon, stated that they had no intention of letting anyone know where the money was going.

The big bankers used some of the bailout, we do know, to buy up smaller banks and prop up banks overseas. CEOs and other top banking executives are spending bailout funds on fabulous bonuses and lavish corporate spa retreats. Meanwhile, big bailout beneficiaries like Citigroup and Bank of America laid off tens of thousands of employees, inviting the question: why were they given all that money in the first place?

While hundreds of billions were being doled out to the very people who had caused the catastrophe, the housing market continued to wilt, credit remained paralyzed, unemployment worsened, and consumer spending sank to record lows.

In sum, free-market corporate capitalism is by its nature a disaster waiting to happen. Its essence is the transformation of living nature into mountains of commodities and commodities into heaps of dead capital. When left entirely to its own devices, capitalism foists its diseconomies and toxicity upon the general public and upon the natural environment--and eventually begins to devour itself.

The immense inequality in economic power that exists in our capitalist society translates into a formidable inequality of political power, which makes it all the more difficult to impose democratic regulations.

If the paladins of Corporate America want to know what really threatens “our way of life,” it is their way of life, their boundless way of pilfering their own system, destroying the very foundation on which they stand, the very community on which they so lavishly feed.

Capitalism's Self-inflicted Apocalypse (http://michaelparenti.org/capitalism%20apocalypse.html)

***

Discuss.

ELVIS
07-11-2009, 01:49 AM
Check out the American Holocaust thread I recently posted while I read this...

bueno bob
07-11-2009, 02:18 AM
Check out the American Holocaust thread I recently posted while I read this...

Will do, thanks!

ELVIS
07-11-2009, 02:19 AM
Outstanding read!

bueno bob
07-11-2009, 02:22 AM
Well, it begs the inevitable question...if not capitalism, what? And how do you fix it WITHOUT any more government interference than necessary?

Jesus Christ
07-11-2009, 02:25 AM
Jesus-ism? :jesuslol:

bueno bob
07-11-2009, 02:26 AM
Jesus-ism? :jesuslol:

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/128343688002656250hallelujahpra.jpg
:D

ELVIS
07-11-2009, 02:31 AM
Well, it begs the inevitable question...if not capitalism, what? And how do you fix it WITHOUT any more government interference than necessary?

Force the robber barons and big bankers out of the equation. These people are afraid of the idea of a politically literate middle class who can represent and defend themsels both physically and idealogically...

But probably 90% of the middle class are ignorant of almost anything that goes on...

It's sad...I doubt it can be fixed...


:elvis:

FORD
07-11-2009, 03:33 AM
Force the robber barons and big bankers out of the equation. These people are afraid of the idea of a politically literate middle class who can represent and defend themsels both physically and idealogically...



Have you been listening to Thom Hartmann?

Nickdfresh
07-11-2009, 04:12 AM
Well, it begs the inevitable question...if not capitalism, what? And how do you fix it WITHOUT any more government interference than necessary?

A regulated capitalism --and there is no other way to achieve that other than through enlightened gov't interference in the economy...

I believe in capitalism (to an extent), but it needs to be tightly regulated, because there is no "free market." The unchecked amalgamation of -the inevitable monopolistic gravity towards- economic power to the victor companies in capitalistic competition actually stifles innovation, increases wealth polarization, and are fundamentally anti-democratic via a system of legalized corruption in "PACS" and lobbyists...

Nickdfresh
07-11-2009, 04:14 AM
...
But probably 90% of the middle class are ignorant of almost anything that goes on...
:elvis:

Which is why white middle class males tend to vote Republican...

ELVIS
07-11-2009, 04:23 AM
Yeah, Mr. "enlightened gov't interference."

Hahahahahahahaha...:rolleyes:

Nickdfresh
07-11-2009, 04:25 AM
You've used an inappropriate smilie with your "ha ha ha.." post, nurse Presley...

ELVIS
07-11-2009, 04:32 AM
That is a rolleyes, silly dumbass...

How in the hell can you suggest Government interference ??

Government IS the problem! The federal government has been far overstepping it's role for over 100 years and now it's come to a head! The US as we knew it for our entire lifetimes is finished...it's just taking a bit of time for the ship to sink, but it's going down...

If you can't see that with all the info that has flashed in front of your eyes, both here and in the real world, you're blind...

We're NOT pulling out of this one, at least not any time soon. And i'm talking about ten to twenty years...


:elvis:

Nickdfresh
07-11-2009, 04:37 AM
That is a rolleyes, silly dumbass...

How in the hell can you suggest Government interference ??

It's called "regulation."



Government IS the problem! The federal government has been far overstepping it's role for over 100 years and now it's come to a head! The US as we knew it for our entire lifetimes is finished...it's just taking a bit of time for the ship to sink, but it's going down...

If you can't see that with all the info that has flashed in front of your eyes, both here and in the real world, you're blind...

We're NOT pulling out of this one, at least not any time soon. And i'm talking about ten to twenty years...


:elvis:

LOL Okay, economist Nurse Crachet, how is "gov't interference" to blame for the current meltdown and recession?

Nickdfresh
07-11-2009, 04:37 AM
Dupe. Site freeze-up...

ELVIS
07-11-2009, 04:46 AM
Because big corporations, big bankers, and the military industrial complex have the entire government in their pocket!

They just robbed us blind with the last so called "stimulus" and they are about to ask for more. You sound prepared to let it happen!

ELVIS
07-11-2009, 04:58 AM
Please read this...

Democracy vs. Constitutionally Limited Government (http://www.fff.org/freedom/0690a.asp)

by Jacob G. Hornberger, June 1990

The world in the latter part of the 20th century is worshipping at the shrine of democracy. And leading the pack are the American politicians. Now that the nations of Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and Nicaragua have moved toward democratic elections, the hostile attitude of United States politicians toward these regimes is coming to an end. As long as the political rulers in these countries are popularly elected, they will now find favor with the American rulers.

Contrary to popular opinion, and what American school children are taught in their government schools, democracy and freedom are not the same thing. A democratic system enables people to vote for their public officials. But the real issue involving freedom is not how public officials are put into office but rather the extent of their power, after election, to interfere with the lives and property of the citizenry. A friend of mine from Latin America drew the distinction well when he described to me the situation in his country: "We have the freedom to elect our dictators every four years."

The great tragedy in our time is that Americans have been taught to believe that they are living under the economic freedom under which their American ancestors lived. Americans constantly proclaim the superiority of the American "capitalist system" over the systems found in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Each Fourth of July, the speeches are filled with oratory about how fortunate Americans are to live under "free enterprise." And now that the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights is approaching, the platitudes of freedom will inevitably increase.

There are already signs of this in the press. For many weeks, the Philip Morris Company has been running advertisements in national magazines and newspapers to commemorate the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights. The ads quote Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men died to win them." The ad recalls Roosevelt's designation of Bill of Rights Day as "a day of remembrance of the democratic and peaceful action by which these rights were gained."

The Philip Morris ads reflect how far Americans have strayed from the original vision of the American Founding Fathers. In order that that vision never be forgotten, it is important for those of us who still believe in it to restate it and re-emphasize it at every opportunity.

Contrary to FDR's and Philip Morris' claim, rights such as life, liberty, and property are not privileges which have been bestowed on us by our government officials. They are not even rights which have been "democratically and peacefully gained." Life, liberty, and property are rights which have been endowed in people by God. They are inherent in the individual. They are inalienable. They pre-exist government. In fact, the only reason government is called into existence is to protect these fundamental, God-given rights.

The problem, of course, is that Americans have been taught by their governmental officials that their rights have been granted by the American Constitution rather than by their Creator. How many times have we heard from our government officials the phrase "your Constitutional rights"? How many times have we heard that if a right is not listed in the Constitution, then the people simply do not have it?

After the disasters associated with the Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers recognized the necessity of a national government. The government was brought into existence through the Constitution. The president and members of Congress were to be popularly elected — a representative democracy. But the American people at that time did not have the illusions about democracy which Americans today have.

Although American public officials were to be elected, their powers over the American people were severely restricted to those listed in the Constitution.

And even this was not sufficient for most Americans of the late 1700s. Unlike their counterparts in the 20th century, they did not trust politicians, democracies, or governments — and especially not their own! They required the passage of the first ten amendments to further expressly restrict the powers of their democratically elected authorities. "Congress shall pass no law ... [T]he right of the people ... shall not be infringed. . .Me right of the people ... shall not be violated...."

The Bill of Rights did not grant rights to the American people. Instead, these amendments prohibited political interference with rights which the people already had before the government came into existence. In fact, it would have been more appropriate to have called the Bill of Rights a "Bill of Prohibitions."

And lest American politicians get the impression that a right did not exist if it was not listed in the Constitution itself, the American people ensured the passage of the forgotten (until recently) Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

What was the result of these severe restrictions on the powers of democratically elected public officials? The most unusual society in the history of man! No income tax, welfare, social security, licensing, passports, immigration controls, federal reserve system, legal tender laws, or virtually any other law or regulation which interfered with how the American people peacefully lived their lives. Why? Not because the politicians did not want these laws but rather because the American people, through their Constitution, had prohibited the politicians from passing them.

So, what happened? Why is the way of life of 20th-century Americans so radically different? Well, that is what makes the Philip Morris ads so pathetic. After all, it was President Franklin D. Roosevelt who was directly responsible for the abandonment of most of the principles of economic liberty on which this nation was founded. With the nationalization of gold; the illegality of gold clauses in private contracts; the imposition of legal tender laws; the cartelization of business under the National Recovery Act; the regulation of securities under the Securities Exchange Act; the allocation of crops and the granting of subsidies under the Agriculture Adjustment Act; the redistribution of wealth from young to old under the Social Security Act; and all of the other redistributive and regulatory schemes of the New Deal; capped by Roosevelt's infamous and disgraceful scheme to pack the U.S. Supreme Court when it was declaring much of his nonsense unconstitutional — Franklin D. Roosevelt did more to destroy the liberty and property of Americans than any other individual in American history.

Companies like Philip Morris, as well as many American politicians, would Me Americans to believe that their lives and earnings are mere privileges granted by their democratically elected officials which these officials can monitor and regulate at will. And, further, that the political subsidies given to tobacco and other companies are rights which cannot be taken away from them.

They prefer that Americans continue believing that they are living under the same type of economic system under which Americans have always lived — a system of "free enterprise" system of "capitalism." After all, if Americans begin discovering that such things as tobacco subsidies were not part of the original American heritage, but instead part of the socialist heritage that gripped the world in the 20th century, Americans might begin asking some very uncomfortable questions about the moral legitimacy of such subsidies.

The American Founding Fathers knew and understood that the only real advantage which democracy had over non-democratically elected governments is that it provides for a peaceful transition of power when public opinion changes. But they also knew and understood that, historically, democracies whose officials had unlimited political power over people's lives and earnings had been among the most tyrannical and oppressive of all governments.

The Founding Fathers recognized that there were certain fundamental rights, such as life, liberty, property, and conscience, with which no government, not even a democratically elected one, could legitimately interfere.

They instituted government to protect the American people from trespassers and marauders, both domestic and foreign. They provided that public officials would be democratically elected. But, at the same time, they shackled these public officials with the Constitution in order to protect themselves and their rights from their democratically elected representatives. They chose constitutionally limited government over democracy. After all, unlike so many today, they worshipped at the shrine of God, not that of Caesar.


:elvis:

ELVIS
07-11-2009, 05:03 AM
I'll point out the third to last paragraph, as i doubt you can read something with that much detail and digest it...

The American Founding Fathers knew and understood that the only real advantage which democracy had over non-democratically elected governments is that it provides for a peaceful transition of power when public opinion changes. But they also knew and understood that, historically, democracies whose officials had unlimited political power over people's lives and earnings had been among the most tyrannical and oppressive of all governments.

Got it ??

Good!


:elvis:

ULTRAMAN VH
07-11-2009, 03:28 PM
Which is why white middle class males tend to vote Republican...

Oh here we go, another shot on the white middle class, by Nickdfresh. Just remember that this country would cease to exist without the white middle class. The government takes our money and writes checks out to welfare recipients, illegal aliens, aid to foreign countries and last but not least, the stimulous bill that didn't work. And that is just a tiny fraction of what the mean ol whitey pays for. Do you practice being an asshole or does it just come naturally?:argh:

FORD
07-11-2009, 03:53 PM
Just remember that this country would cease to exist without the white middle class.

No, without the middle-class, period. "White" has nothing to do with it. The decline of this country can be directly linked to when the economic policies of the BCE began attacking the middle class, in 1981.

And now 40% of our so-called economy is nothing more than a bunch of criminal jackasses on Wall Street pushing paper around - or more likely electrons now than actual paper - figuring out new ways to steal from each other and profit from it. And considering that they dodge taxes, even THAT does very little to actually help the country.

FORD
07-11-2009, 03:58 PM
The government takes our money and writes checks out to welfare recipients

...like Phillip Morris, Monsanto, ADM, Halliburton, and (formerly) Enron. Not to mention AIG, Goldmine Sucks, and the rest of the Wall $treet thugs.

Aside from the "defense" budget, corporate welfare is the biggest waste of taxpayer money.

ULTRAMAN VH
07-11-2009, 04:08 PM
No, without the middle-class, period. "White" has nothing to do with it. The decline of this country can be directly linked to when the economic policies of the BCE began attacking the middle class, in 1981.

And now 40% of our so-called economy is nothing more than a bunch of criminal jackasses on Wall Street pushing paper around - or more likely electrons now than actual paper - figuring out new ways to steal from each other and profit from it. And considering that they dodge taxes, even THAT does very little to actually help the country.

I agree to a point, but don't forget the juggernaut called China that has our economy by the balls. I couldn't even find a pair of U.S. MADE flip flops for the Summer. Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ, how can we boost our economy if I buy a tv, guitar, I-PHONE, etc made in China? WTF

FORD
07-11-2009, 04:21 PM
You can blame the whole China thing on Poppy Bush and his brother Prescott Jr.

http://www.usccc.org/newhome/mem-8.jpg

Remember all the hype about Nixon "opening" China? What people usually don't remember is who actually did the footwork. It was Ambassador George HW Poppy Bush. And that's more than likely when the selling out of this country to the Chinese really began. God only knows what that piece of shit promised them when he made the deal.

Nickdfresh
07-11-2009, 07:11 PM
Oh here we go, another shot on the white middle class, by Nickdfresh.

Well, don't take it personally. Cause it ain't about you, dregs...


Just remember that this country would cease to exist without the white middle class.

Which is why middle class (mostly) white people vote against their own interests as the policies enacted by their politicians have clearly favored unrestrained corporatism, oligarchy, and plutocracy...


The government takes our money and writes checks out to welfare recipients, illegal aliens, aid to foreign countries and last but not least, the stimulous bill that didn't work.

LMFAO. The same high school boy myths? Really? The US spends less per capita on "fer'in aid" than just about any other industrialized nation and we have so made getting welfare a punitive experience that people who really need it often don't get it - you know, like children of single parents...

I agree that America does not exist without a middle class - the problem is we have a class of voters in this country that spout the same simpleton scapegoat cliches and affirmations you've just mentioned...

How about the fact that most corporations pay little or no income tax?

Are they fucking worse than "welfare" mothers? Really?


And that is just a tiny fraction of what the mean ol whitey pays for. Do you practice being an asshole or does it just come naturally?:argh:


"Ol' Whitey" pays for it in his ass as corporate America continues to increase profitability as wages remain stagnate (since the 1970s). But be sure to take this from the bullshit right wing propagandists that spin the same cliche-ridden myths and market their ass-raping of you and your undereducated, under-informed brethren, cuz...

And yes, I have a natural talent for being an asshole, but I also invest monumental, triathlete like dedication and training to my craft to maximize my God-given assholeness...

And WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!

ELVIS
07-11-2009, 09:15 PM
You can blame the whole China thing on Poppy Bush and his brother Prescott Jr.



Oh man, you're bringing tears to my eyes...:biggrin:

Dude, if everything is BCE, how could it have stopped on January 20th ??


Hahaha...:tongue0011:

Blackflag
07-11-2009, 10:02 PM
LOL Okay, economist Nurse Crachet, how is "gov't interference" to blame for the current meltdown and recession?

The Federal Reserve is the primary culprit in this whole mess.

ELVIS
07-11-2009, 10:16 PM
The Federal Reserve is NOT a government organization, but they are a huge part of the problem...

standin
07-12-2009, 03:07 PM
Not sure if this fits here, under the economy thread or the health care thread...

Poverty, Inc. - Exposé: America's Investigative Reports (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/expose/2008/08/poverty-inc.html)

By the Numbers - Exposé: America's Investigative Reports (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/expose/2008/08/by-the-numbers.html)

It is not imbed-able sorry, but it is worth the watch...

The Poverty Business
Inside U.S. companies' audacious drive to extract more profits from the nation's working poor


It's a shame, truly it is. I was talking with a former associate he was complaining about being disassociated. I pointed out that he was a thief. And and he stated "But I don't steal from you" This show exampled much of his fiscal reviews and policy.

Big Train
07-12-2009, 08:57 PM
The only true problem with capitalism is human nature. NO economic system has ever been able to negate the effect of humans on it. Capitalism is the only system that has ever truly ever made use of humans natural desire to want "more"..for their loved ones and themselves...by making it a part of the system. Communism discourages self ambition and punishes the individual for those natural desires.

So I suppose you could argue that some participants in our system have perverted it and take more than they give. That is obvious.

So what is the correct response? Make them take their ball and go elsewhere? Regulate them so that they can't play anymore? Take everything they have as a justified response, so that they won't hurt anyone with all their money?

hideyoursheep
07-12-2009, 11:38 PM
The only true problem with capitalism is human nature.Try and expound on how human nature is the problem.

Big Train
07-13-2009, 01:45 AM
Greed and Corruption are human traits the last time I checked.

The only things that really affect capitalism negatively are that. The desire to do better for yourself benefits the greater good. The outcome of working harder is greater resources and better quality of life for all.

The outliers of the last century have affected the overall good as well in both positive and negative senses.

However, you'd be hard pressed over that longview to say it hasn't benefited us all greatly.

ELVIS
07-13-2009, 01:48 AM
People are the problem with any system, be it in a church, government, business, gang violence, you name it...

hideyoursheep
07-13-2009, 01:52 AM
Greed and Corruption are human traits the last time I checked.



But honesty, integrity and having a conscious are ALSO human traits.

So nature really has nothing to do with it.

Big Train
07-13-2009, 01:58 AM
Ah semantics...

Traits...ok, I'll play along. TRAITS affect outcomes. Depending who is at the wheel, you can either get "virtue" or you get "greed". If Bernie Madoff was nothing but virtue, he never would have gotten into all that mess.

hideyoursheep
07-13-2009, 02:09 AM
Ah semantics...

Traits...ok, I'll play along. TRAITS affect outcomes.

But you said, nature. You don't know the difference between the two?

Who's asking you to "play along"? Is it insulting to you to be asked to have the ability to explain your post?

Big Train
07-13-2009, 12:27 PM
Not insulting, just tiring to get into a pissing contest about semantics. Either term is acceptable in the context of my comments.

Nature
1 a: the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence b: disposition, temperament

Trait
2 a: a distinguishing quality (as of personal character) <curiosity is one of her notable traits> b: an inherited characteristic

Is there another point beyond personal choice of traits vs. nature that you would like to debate?

Jesus Christ
07-13-2009, 01:23 PM
Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ

Tap dancing? In sandals??

Not bloody likely, My son. :jesuslol: