Thought I'd share this for those interested. This features Shihab Rattansi, Chris Hedges and Rick Wolff. This is focused on a snapshot on the economic reality and not a political 'which party is at fault'. The discussion ranges from ecological concerns to slave conditions (in the USA).
Replies sorted oldest to newest
This is focused on a snapshot on the economic reality and not a political 'which party is at fault'.
Exactly. But how can you expect to have a serious conversation about the economy/economics without discussing the political environment which governs, regulates, and establishes its 'rules of engagement??' 
Capitalism in the U.S. is what it is because it's been allowed to be like that. And "who's fault that is" seems like a pretty pertinent question to me.
I think both men broke down both the economic and the political realities (at the beginning of the interview) of what our problem is, the cause of it, and the repercussions of what has happened to our economy ("the crisis") VERYwell!! But to me, their ideology points 'the finger of blame' in the wrong direction!! Capitalism doesn't operate in a bubble. There's someone/something it has to answer to. Just like everyone/everything else.
The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about economic ideologies.
But capitalist economists are LIARS by ignoring the depreciation of durable consumer goods and not talking about planned obsolescence.
Consumerism was not possible before 1900. So talking about Marxism and traditional Capitalism in the 20th century was nonsense.
Planned obsolescence creates jobs but it is just a high technology form of slavery that wrecks the planet.
Xum
These low end jobs have been the only jobs being created since the 2nd Bush Administration. Where the hell were the critics then?
You know .... there's also been no complaint about the fact that there are hundreds of thousands ... if not millions ... of jobs that go unfilled because there's not enough people with the right education to fill them.
Perhaps if past presidents had been more focused and spent more money on schools and education than on prisons,wars and the rich ... the unemployment rate wouldn't be what it is today.
These low end jobs have been the only jobs being created since the 2nd Bush Administration. Where the hell were the critics then?
Like every other major crisis, there's always a point where you can no longer kick the can, rob peter to pay paul, etc etc.
Bubbles have been replaced by "new" bubbles, up until there's no other bubble to create and no basis to inflate the last one (ie consumerism can't take place if wages cannot sustain it).
This is something that's been in the making well before Bush Jr.s presidency. This is an inherent characteristic of this system, which is why there's no way of avoiding them, only conditioning the people to accept them as normal (ie. boom's are followed by a bust so just hold on, etc).
......and then there are the ecological concerns. Capitalism is based on a >3% compound growth rate in perpetuity. That not sustainable even when you factor concepts like "creative destruction" and "planned obsolescence". Those are related to a growth economic model.
The political environment where Capitalism has been normalized is very different from places where people make sure the system works for the people, even if they are defined as capitalist countries/economies. That's not because it can be good, its because the people actively block or in other ways stop/prevent the Capitalist/Free Marketeer reasoning from going forward.
They would jump at the chance to privatize public services in parts of Europe (that will NEVER entertain it) but they cannot. NOT because it wont be profitable (as they reason) but the people have determined that form of reasoning is invalid.
Having a single (or even a group) of people to pin this on is very attractive because it gives a clear defined target to oppose. The problem is, the more you study it, the more you see the problem continues and is reproduced regardless of who is in "control" and what their intentions are (good or bad).
That's why the problem is systemic.
Even now there are MASSIVE efforts to redefine and dismiss the issues with Fracking. Why? Because there is a HUGE euphoria over the profitability of it. That is (by Capital definition) the centerpiece of their reasoning. Other considerations are either dismissed, not considered (under any situation).
You know .... there's also been no complaint about the fact that there are hundreds of thousands ... if not millions ... of jobs that go unfilled because there's not enough people with the right education to fill them.
How much time and money has to be wasted on education because we are supposed to learn some useless crap from European culture in the name of what they call "well rounded."
Xum
It's not Capitalism, but, Deregulation and the abandonment of the system of Checks and Balances that is supposed to be applied to industry, as well as government, and a runaway Congress that has abandoned the American people to the whims of business and a chosen few of the 1%.
You know .... there's also been no complaint about the fact that there are hundreds of thousands ... if not millions ... of jobs that go unfilled because there's not enough people with the right education to fill them.
Perhaps if past presidents had been more focused and spent more money on schools and education than on prisons,wars and the rich ... the unemployment rate wouldn't be what it is today.
But, why would they, when they can just order up enough foreigners with the qualifications to fill those positions so that they can focus on all the money to be made on imprisoning Americans. If they invest in the education and training of Americans, the profit in the Prison Industrial Complex would dry up and they would not longer have a vast pool of Americans to socially condition into acceptance of low waged jobs with dwindling benefits and fleeting employee rights.
It's not Capitalism, but, Deregulation and the abandonment of the system of Checks and Balances that is supposed to be applied to industry, as well as government, and a runaway Congress that has abandoned the American people to the whims of business and a chosen few of the 1%.
I agree. If the point is that the people of other countries control and put reigns on errant, unchecked capitalism and regulation ... then it would stand to reason that the same thing could be done in any capitalist system ... if there was a political/social will for it.
It's not Capitalism, but, Deregulation and the abandonment of the system of Checks and Balances that is supposed to be applied to industry, as well as government, and a runaway Congress that has abandoned the American people to the whims of business and a chosen few of the 1%.
But, why would they, when they can just order up enough foreigners with the qualifications to fill those positions so that they can focus on all the money to be made on imprisoning Americans. If they invest in the education and training of Americans, the profit in the Prison Industrial Complex would dry up and they would not longer have a vast pool of Americans to socially condition into acceptance of low waged jobs with dwindling benefits and fleeting employee rights.
Believe it or not, you've just made a case as to why it is the system and not deregulation.
The relationship between Capitalism and Deregulation is that of a "firewall" against "unchecked capitalism" pretty safe to say that we all agree on that. The problem is that Capitalism (ie those who adopt that structure of reasoning) have no other way of viewing a firewall (or check) as anything other than an impediment to profitability. This isn't because of the "greedy person" but because of the nature of the system and how it functions including how capitalism interacts with itself (ie. Industrial Capitalist interacting with Finance Capitalist).
This is why some people refer to Capitalism as sociopathic. It (or those to adopt the reasoning) have NO OTHER WAY of making sense of the world beyond what increases the 'profit rate' even if it means engaging in self destructive behavior (ie a company going bankrupt because it sucks dry its own consumer base).
The choice isn't between Capitalism or NOTHING, Capitalism or Totalitarian Rule (usually falsely labeled Communism).
There's plenty of examples of ways of conducting business that actually places the people and the needs of the people as "the bottom line" and NOT profitability. The issue is Americans (sadly including Black people) have a fear of letting Capitalism go.
Having a single (or even a group) of people to pin this on is very attractive because it gives a clear defined target to oppose. The problem is, the more you study it, the more you see the problem continues and is reproduced regardless of who is in "control" and what their intentions are (good or bad).
That's why the problem is systemic.
I might be able to agree with this except for the fact that:
It is a LOT easier to destroy a thing than it is to build it back up AFTER it's been ruined. And the more damage that's done ... the more that needs to be done to make it right again.
In the case of the economy ... if you look over the past 50 years, Republicans have had many, many more years in control of our government implementing their destructive "benefit the rich" economic policies than Democrats have had to try to implement policies to 'right the ship' after it's been sunk!!
Now, of course, BOTH Parties (i.e., politicians in general) have some blame for the reason we are where we (economically) are right now. I don't think that can be denied. But when you have ONE side so much more bent on destruction of the economy and the middle-class while at the same time favoring Wall Street and the rich ... and that side has been given MORE time to put that destruction into action and MORE control to do so than the OTHER side ... I don't see how you can fairly place the blame equally all around. 
Deregulation refers to the deletion, abandonment, or relaxation of various laws, rules, and regulations that affect business and industry. However, the topic of deregulation is best understood by first understanding the purposes and effects of regulations.
It is often thought that individual firms lack the perspective and/or the incentive to protect society. Consequently, the regulation of business and industry by government is for the purposes of consumer protection and or the enhancement of business competition. Regulation is generally thought to also protect minorities, employees, investors, and the environment.
The railroad industry was one of the first industries that the federal government targeted. As a result, the Interstate Commerce Act was passed in 1887. As such, the Interstate Commerce Act created the first regulatory body in the United States—the Interstate Commerce Commission, which still regulates transportation rates, as well as establishes rules and regulations for interstate commerce.
The United States government expanded its control over industry by focusing on trusts, where a company is established for the purpose of controlling multiple companies. Consequently, the Sherman Antitrust Act was enacted in 1890 to control monopolies. In 1914, the Clayton Act amended the Sherman Act by forbidding specific business actions. For example, tying contracts interlocking directorates and discriminatory pricing were made illegal, if the results of these actions lessened competition.
The Federal Trade Commission Act, also enacted in 1914, formally established the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Among other responsibilities, the FTC remains responsible for defining, detecting, and enforcing compliance with the Clayton Act. The Wheeler-Lea Act of 1938 expanded FTC jurisdiction to include any practice or practices that harm the public in general and those practices that harm competitors. The Robinson-Patman Act was enacted in 1938 due to the growth of large retailing conglomerates. This law covered discrimination against buyers as well as sellers.
In 1958 the National Traffic and Safety Act was enacted. This legislation provided for the creation of compulsory safety standards for automobiles and tires.
In 1966 the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act was passed. This act provided for the regulation of the packaging and labeling of consumer goods. It also required manufacturers to state package contents, the maker of the contents, and how much of individual contents are included.
The Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act was enacted in 1974. This legislation increased fines for violation of the Sherman Act. Two years later, the Antitrust Improvement Act required firms to notify the FTC of merger plans. This act also gave state attorney generals the power to sue for the benefit of consumers.
It is generally thought that the permissiveness of the federal government began during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon, which led the way for formal deregulation. During the 1980s the government turned its focus from laws, rules, and regulations to the creation of market incentives that were thought to motivate business.
Proponents of deregulation argue that government intervention impedes the natural laws of supply and demand and ultimately increases costs to consumers. In addition, the over-regulation of business is thought to thwart innovation by creating delays and increased red tape. Thus in 1981 the Ronald Reagan administration created the Task Force on Regulatory Relief to review all proposed new regulations and review old regulations. The establishment of this task force also lead to the increased use of cost-benefit analysis, which compares the cost of all regulations to their benefit.
Approximately thirty years ago, the United States government put into practice a series of deregulation legislation concerning the airline industry. The effort was intended to encourage healthy competition and lower the inflated airfare costs. To a certain extent, the deregulation worked, and the 1990s saw the continual growth of the airline industry, with a large turnover rate of airline companies.
However, airlines went through a dramatic decline in the early period of the twenty-first century. According to a 2008 article in the New York Times, “Did Ending Regulation Help Fliers?,” the airline industry lost more than $30 billion between 2001 and 2006 due to many problems that had not been expected at the time of deregulation. The terrorist attack of 9/11 encouraged investor doubt and customer dissatisfaction with airlines, and the rising costs of air fuel again increased airfare. It has yet to be seen if deregulation had an ultimately positive effect on the airline industry or not.
Certain deregulation policies, such as 1992 Energy Policy Act, encouraged free action of the companies offering electricity in the United States. As a result of this deregulation, energy companies began a series of splits and mergers, an occurrence that moved state by state as the deregulation became more common. In 1998, California initiated a series of steps designed to eliminate energy monopolies and offer its public more choices in where they got their electrical power.
At first, the results of such state deregulation practices—also attempted by Texas and Illinois—were chaotic, leading to shortages and inflated energy prices. As states regulated and deregulated their electrical energy companies, the national industry saw the rise of several large conglomerations. Powering marketing, or the trading of electricity through energy companies, become common. Long-term results, however, are expected to lead to stability and healthy growth of America's energy industry.
Among the arguments for deregulation is the concept called the Tollbooth theory. This theory proposes that in economies controlled through heavy regulation, the ethical relationship between industry and government will slowly collapse and the economy will suffer. As penalties increase and regulations become too constricting to allow free movement by companies, the Tollbooth theory says the bureaucracies will begin accepting bribes and payoffs in exchange for helpful deals; they will look the other way while companies violate the regulations. A system of corruption is then established that threatens the economy and destabilizes all industries.
Supporters of deregulation and the Tollbooth theory often use Russia as an example, citing reforming legislation passed from 2001 to 2004 and its effects. These laws pertained to certification and registration by businesses; they established clear limits to the amount of regulation possible, helping to pull Russia from what was theorized as a Toll-booth economy. The amount of red-tape businesses had to surmount was drastically lessened, and much registration was localized. Freed from over-regulation, Russia's economy is expected to continue to improve, with small business employment growing and start-up companies becoming more common. (Of course, high energy prices might be a better explanation for Russia's economic resurgence).
Opponents to the Tollbooth theory use the Public Interest model instead, which theorizes that governments use regulations to control dangerous market trends, and that regulation does not usually lead to corruption or instability.
In recent years, deregulation has become a popular international method to improve economic conditions and open nations to more global business. Many deregulation policies effect tariffs and customs fees, giving international
companies more opportunities to conduct business overseas. In Europe, for instance, the EU nations completed a marketing directive in 2007 which was intended to fully open the European Union nations to outside trade. The directive was immensely successful, with fourteen out of the fifteen original EU nations reaching fully open markets.
Deregulation is making an impact elsewhere, as well. In 2007, European businesses formally encouragedJapan to continue its deregulation policies, which were opening many Japanese markets to foreign competition. The European businesses believed that the intense deregulation Japan had spearheaded from 2001 to 2006 had led to reform-fatigue. Japan, after breaking up its post office monopoly and opening such markets as medicine and telecommunication, is now slowing deregulation efforts, afraid that they are harming internal business.
In India, deregulation has the potential to change oil prices for the growing country. In a 2008 reaction to dropping oil subsidies, the Indian government raised fuel prices, causing an even worse spike in the continuing inflation. Another possibility, encouraged by international vendors, is for India to drop tariffs on imported oil, a deregulation activity it has already refused once but is now reconsidering.
Despite rumors that in 2008 China would attempt the deregulation of fuel industries so far refused by India, the Asian nation has instead opted for a tax cut on their windfall profit tax. China has also considered raising fuel prices, but has not yet made any moves to deregulate their fuel companies, as the government is also worried about high inflation. The Chinese tax cut, however, is expected to be highly successful and serves as an example for alternatives to deregulation.
In a different type of market, the United Kingdom is now beginning to deregulate its broadband industry. Previously to 2008, broadband companies were forced to offer broadband internet services at a fixed rate determined by the government, but new analysis showed that competition between United Kingdom broadband companies was rising. Now, if four or more broadband companies are present for consumers to choose from, the price cap regulation does not apply. As the high-speed internet market continues to grow in the UK, forecasts suggest even more widespread deregulation.
SEE ALSO Economics
“Deregulation.” Consumer Reports, July 2002. Available from: http://www.consumerreports.org.
Electricity Deregulation Report Global 2008. Ed 7. ABS Energy Research, 2008.
“European business chief asks Japan to deregulate.” EU Business, 2007. Available from:http://www.eubusiness.com/news_live/1195043521.94/.
“FCC Staff Stiffs Cable on Deregulation.” Multichannel News 26, no. 6 (2005): 34.
Gorman, H. “Deregulation Increases Cash Flow, Profitability.” Electric Light & Power 82, no. 5 (2004): 31–33.
Guasch, J.L., and R.W. Hahn. “The Costs and Benefits of Regulation: Implications for Developing Countries.” The World Bank Research Observer 14, no. 1 (1999): 137–158.
Jackson, D. “A 2005 Focal Point.” Telephony 245, no. 22 (2004): 50.
Kelly, Neon. “Deregulation Gets Green Light.” Computing, 2008. Available from:http://www.computing.co.uk/com...-green-light-3836409.
Maynard, Micheline. “Did Ending Regulation Help Fliers?” New York Times, 2008. Available from:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/17air.html.
McDonald, M. “Changed Forever.” Air Transport World 41,no. 7 (2004): 36–39.
Plunkett, Jack W. Plunkett's Energy Industry Almanac 2008: Energy Industry Market Research. Plunkett Research Ltd, 2007.
Shen, Samuel, and Aizhu Chen. “China won't deregulate fuel prices soon.” Business Spectator. May, 2008.
Rachman, D.J., and M.H. Mescon. Business Today. New York:Random House, 1987.
Yakovlev, Evgeny, and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya. Reforms in Business Regulation: Evidence from Russia,2008. Available from: http://www.hecer.fi/Seminars/P...huravskaya_paper.pdf.""
i.e.,
Everything that Regulations were put in place for has in recent decades been eroded to the point that it is only the consumer that is adversely affected by such Deregulation.
Deregulation of industry in America strips our economy of the checks and balances that keep industry and consumers on level playing fields, and creates what we have now, an economy where the majority of the wealth is held by only 2% of Americans, less than 1% dictating government rules, regulations and laws, the majority of American jobs being sent overseas, and foreign nations able to flood the American market with so many cheap consumer goods that it hurts or destroys American producers of goods and services.
So, it's not the Free Enterprise/Capitalist System itself, but unchecked (deregulated) capitalism, where the consumer, American jobs and American production is left unprotected, and at the mercy of industry/big business as opposed to on a level playing field with the American consumer,the American worker, and American production.
i.e.,
Everything that Regulations were put in place for has in recent decades been eroded to the point that it is only the consumer that is adversely affected by such Deregulation.
Deregulation of industry in America strips our economy of the checks and balances that keep industry and consumers on level playing fields, and creates what we have now, an economy where the majority of the wealth is held by only 2% of Americans, less than 1% dictating government rules, regulations and laws, the majority of American jobs being sent overseas, and foreign nations able to flood the American market with so many cheap consumer goods that it hurts or destroys American producers of goods and services.
So, it's not the Free Enterprise/Capitalist System itself, but unchecked (deregulated) capitalism, where the consumer, American jobs and American production is left unprotected, and at the mercy of industry/big business as opposed to on a level playing field with the American consumer,the American worker, and American production.
Okay, I think I see why we're not connecting. The material you posted has more to do with "markets" than the Capitalist system of production (they're not the same thing).
However, you can take a snapshot of anytime you consider to be a good example of regulated capitalism and I'll show that you'll still have inescapable systemic problems that produce the reasonableness of deregulation (and the systemic necessity for it).
If you look carefully at the supporters of regulation and deregulation at any given point (past or present), you'll see that it very often includes one group of Capitalist who've (based on their own calculations) decided to smash another group of Capitalist.
I may post a video that illustrates the nuance of this a bit later.
I've watched this thread grow....and fact is , there have been several highly intelligent and interesting perspectives on this subject and frankly, there ain't much more I can add! However, I do have a couple ideas so, let's see...
I won't attempt to add an 'alternate system' of economic's for examination, but let's look at 'Capitalism' as it is. I've alway's contended that 'Capitalism' is a cancer on on mankind and maybe this has something to do with why:
(from the N.Y. Times)
Mark Lennihan/Associated PressAn American International Group office building in New York in 2008.Fresh from paying back a $182 billion bailout, the American International Group has been running a nationwide advertising campaign with the tagline “Thank you America.”
Behind the scenes, the restored insurance company is weighing whether to tell the government agencies that rescued it during the financial crisis: thanks, but you cheated our shareholders.
The board of A.I.G. will meet on Wednesday to consider joining a $25 billion shareholder lawsuit against the government, court records show. The lawsuit does not argue that government help was not needed. It contends that the onerous nature of the rescue — the taking of what became a 92 percent stake in the company, the deal’s high interest rates and the funneling of billions to the insurer’s Wall Street clients — deprived shareholders of tens of billions of dollars and violated the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for “public use, without just compensation.”
-
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/20...y-sue-its-savior/?hp
-
'Capitalism' is a system created by and run by men and therefore (IMHO,) subject to the imperfection of men. That said, I also agree with Sis E.R. above that there is no way we can discuss economic's without discussing politic's (another 'man made' system of imperfection.)
But for me, a much more burning question is: why does this society fear the rich? The rich are subect to bout's of stupidity sometimes, even greater than those of society at large. Just consider what kind of mind-set it would take, to consider the action's of those as STUPID as the individuals in the article above.
Now, as a 'taxpayer', for these clowns above to even 'fix their mouth' to consider a lawsuit against the hand that fed it...pizz'es me off. On the other hand, it also exposes the turtle's belly in that these fools are in much more control of what they could ever even handle.
That's MY perspective.
The 'calculus' of Capitalism, not unlike the 'calculus' (or science) of politic's, are purposely complex (even written in legalese,) for the very intent of the throwing of rocks and the hiding of hands, though further exposing (IMHO,) it's susceptibility to destruction.
So, the durability of capitalism? Sure. But the longivity of capitalism hmm...not so much.
I've watched this thread grow....and fact is , there have been several highly intelligent and interesting perspectives on this subject and frankly, there ain't much more I can add! However, I do have a couple ideas so, let's see...
I won't attempt to add an 'alternate system' of economic's for examination, but let's look at 'Capitalism' as it is. I've alway's contended that 'Capitalism' is a cancer on on mankind and maybe this has something to do with why:
(from the N.Y. Times)
Mark Lennihan/Associated PressAn American International Group office building in New York in 2008.Fresh from paying back a $182 billion bailout, the American International Group has been running a nationwide advertising campaign with the tagline “Thank you America.”
Behind the scenes, the restored insurance company is weighing whether to tell the government agencies that rescued it during the financial crisis: thanks, but you cheated our shareholders.
The board of A.I.G. will meet on Wednesday to consider joining a $25 billion shareholder lawsuit against the government, court records show. The lawsuit does not argue that government help was not needed. It contends that the onerous nature of the rescue — the taking of what became a 92 percent stake in the company, the deal’s high interest rates and the funneling of billions to the insurer’s Wall Street clients — deprived shareholders of tens of billions of dollars and violated the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for “public use, without just compensation.”
-
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/20...y-sue-its-savior/?hp
-
'Capitalism' is a system created by and run by men and therefore (IMHO,) subject to the imperfection of men. That said, I also agree with Sis E.R. above that there is no way we can discuss economic's without discussing politic's (another 'man made' system of imperfection.)
But for me, a much more burning question is: why does this society fear the rich? The rich are subect to bout's of stupidity sometimes, even greater than those of society at large. Just consider what kind of mind-set it would take, to consider the action's of those as STUPID as the individuals in the article above.
Now, as a 'taxpayer', for these clowns above to even 'fix their mouth' to consider a lawsuit against the hand that fed it...pizz'es me off. On the other hand, it also exposes the turtle's belly in that these fools are in much more control of what they could ever even handle.
That's MY perspective.
The 'calculus' of Capitalism, not unlike the 'calculus' (or science) of politic's, are purposely complex (even written in legalese,) for the very intent of the throwing of rocks and the hiding of hands, though further exposing (IMHO,) it's susceptibility to destruction.
So, the durability of capitalism? Sure. But the longivity of capitalism hmm...not so much.
"I've always contended that 'Capitalism' is a cancer on on mankind" . . .
*************************************************************
Now, this is the truth, however, still, it is (IMO) unregulated (and/or unfairly regulated) capitalism, not capitalism in and of itself.
When you study the history of the "Industrial Revolution", which took place centuries before there were any regulations or checks and balances in place to keep the abuses of capitalism in check, you had the same abuses of power, of the environment and of workers that have negative affects on a country's economy, workers, and environment that you have witnessed happen here in America since 'industry' has been deregulated so much.
But for me, a much more burning question is: why does this society fear the rich? The rich are subect to bout's of stupidity sometimes, even greater than those of society at large. Just consider what kind of mind-set it would take, to consider the action's of those as STUPID as the individuals in the article above.
I like this question, as well!! 
And I think my answer to it would be this:
Frankly, I don't see 'we the people' as necessarily being "fearful" of the rich - at least to the extent that they/we are seemingly 'afraid' to challenge them. IMO, I find that folks like us here on the board (I'll call it "intellectually astute" - for lack of a better phrase right now!!) .... tend to give 'average Americans"waaaayyyyy too much credit for understanding a variety of (important) complexities ... among them, the very subjects of this thread: economics, politics, the rich/Wall Street, capitalism, etc.
And let me reiterate the 'waaaaaayyyyy' part a second time!! 
As I see it, the biggest reason that the 'average American' is not as 'up in arms' about these travesties of justice is because, really ... they have NO IDEA what to do about it ... how to fight against it ... how it is working against them (i.e., the rules, regulations, de-regulations, legislation, etc.,) that allow such BS to take place ... and I would call it more of an 'impotence' of action' for doing something about it ... than an actual "fear" of doing something about it.
I think there's plenty of people who WOULD jump on a bandwagon to do something about these kinds of issues if only they knew WHAT it was they could do!!
One perfect example of that would be the recent 'Occupy" movement!! The (financial/economic) unfairness and inequality of the mortgage crisis and bank bailouts showed (with a big, flashing, neon-colored floodlight!!) 'the average American' just how badly we were being bent over by the "1%." And enough people got pissed off about that to actually protest against it!! Problem was .... they had NO IDEA how to EFFECTIVELY do that!!
So, in essence, they just sat around ("occupied') a park, pissed off, complaining, talking about it all the time and did ... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE .... as a matter of rectifying the problem!!! Being 'pissed off' gets NOTHING done. There's no "action" in just being mad. And that's the most tens of thousands of disgruntled "average Americans" did ... knew how do to ... were motivated to do. And there were still millions more ... ALSO sufficiently pissed off ... who didn't even go and sit in a park!!
So we ended up with a net accomplishment of ZERO in effective advocacy. 
NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH. NIL. NONE. We/they are right where we/they were when they started what was/should have been a "movement" to 'do something about the rich, once and for all.
But that's all over now. And it's back to business (the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer) as usual. 
The fact is ... 'we the people" DO have enormous power in this country to change/rearrange the political, economic, social, educational, systemic directions in this country. In the simplest, most non-complex, least physically-assertive way possible: it's called OUR VOTE!! Because no matter HOW MUCH money Big Corp/Big Money Lobbyist/the 1% throw at a candidate or into his/her election campaign to get that person elected .... it is the VOTE OF THE PEOPLE - individually and collectively - that either puts that so-called "representative of the people" in their seats .... or NOT!!
It would be a "whole new world," if more people were more conscious about who they put into office!! Now ... that doesn't guarantee there wouldn't be a whole new brand of chaos in Washington (500 'new', not-yet-corrupt, rookie politicians running the country could be something on the psychotic side, for sure!) ... but, then again ... it might just be the 'breath of fresh air' needed to make the rules and laws that favor 'the 99%' over 'the 1%."
As Yemaya said ... AIG 'changed their minds' and withdrew themselves from that lawsuit strictly due to "public outrage" ... i.e., a barrage of calls/letter/faxes from 'the public' that voiced their displeasure .. with, as I understand it, some accompanying threats of withdrawing as customers!!
Further ... I do not subscribe to the idea that it's "capitalism" that's the problem as much as it is the greed-driven, selfish, unconscionable, gluttonous individual "capitalists" who exploit, abuse and disrespect the fundamental nature of the system. Most - but not all "capitalists" are like that. And many who are not ... are still able to be just as rich and successful as the 'demons' that are.
Warren Buffett, the richest ('capitalist') man in the world, is not the same type of cut-throat "capitalist" as the CEOs of Wells Fargo or AIG or GE or Bank of America. Howard Schultz, founder and CEO of Starbucks ... has ALWAYS offered ALL of his employees health care, and profit-sharing, and makes the conscious corporate-responsibility decision to support and buy from AMERICAN vendors and suppliers. He's saved MANY an American company from going out of business.
The "demons" do what they do because they are allowed (legally) to do it. But they can just as easily be 'cut off at the knees' ... and even so ... they would STILL do whatever they COULD do to make AS MUCH money as they COULD make. So the question in my mind is ... how much should "we, the people" (who DO have that control) - (through regulation) - allow that to be?
They have dropped the lawsuit.
I know however, my point still is...
Now, as a 'taxpayer', for these clowns above to even 'fix their mouth' to consider a lawsuit against the hand that fed it...pizz'es me off.
And I'm sure, most other tax-payer's feel the same...yet being a 'captive' audience.
however, still, it is (IMO) unregulated (and/or unfairly regulated) capitalism, not capitalism in and of itself.
Very true. Still 'regulation' or the need thereof (IMHO,) exposes the epicenter in the susceptibility to the infirmities in that system. Cause when does greed follow the rules?
IMO, I find that folks like us here on the board (I'll call it "intellectually astute" - for lack of a better phrase right now!!) .... tend to give 'average Americans"waaaayyyyy too much credit for understanding a variety of (important) complexities ... among them, the very subjects of this thread: economics, politics, the rich/Wall Street, capitalism, etc.
You hit the nail on the head. I could not agree more! Wherein lies also however..98% (there goes that number again!) of our problem...'we the people', ( it seems at least 98% of us!) don't seem to 'pool our power' against the assertions of the rich and greedy due to the lack of general study or fundamental understanding of how the entire system works.
How many actually know who Adam Smith even is? (or rather....was.)
(ER said 'we the people'!)
HA!
How many actually know who Adam Smith even is? (or rather....was.)
That is why this is so much bullsh!t!
Adam Smith died in 1790. Henry Ford didn't start producing the Model-T until 1908. The term planned obsolescence was not coined until the 1920s.
Technology changed whatever was called capitalism in the 20th century.
In 1900 there were 8000 cars in the United States. By 1920 there were millions and half of them were Model-Ts. By 1995 there were 200,000,000 cars in the United States. So just running around yelling capitalism 43 years after the Moon landing when PhD economists can't even explain how a piston engine in a car works makes no sense whatsoever. I have asked a PhD economist, he couldn't do it.
I tried getting discussions going on Black websites for Black people to standardize on Linux more than 10 years ago. I could not even get the conversation started. What we have today is a kind of techno-consumer slavery. People go into debt for stuff they don't understand and then economists ignore the depreciation and the slaves have to upgrade.
That is not what Adam Smith was talking about.
But if by capitalism you mean the smart people playing economic power games to scam the dumb people then yeah, that's capitalism. But Adam Smith talked about enlightened self interest. I bet he would not object to mandatory accounting in the schools. But they didn't have public schools in his day so he most likely never would have considered it.
So today's Corporate Consumerism may be a form of capitalism but that does not mean it is the only possible form of high technology capitalism.
Xum
They have dropped the lawsuit.
I know however, my point still is...
Now, as a 'taxpayer', for these clowns above to even 'fix their mouth' to consider a lawsuit against the hand that fed it...pizz'es me off.
And I'm sure, most other tax-payer's feel the same...yet being a 'captive' audience.
however, still, it is (IMO) unregulated (and/or unfairly regulated) capitalism, not capitalism in and of itself.
Very true. Still 'regulation' or the need thereof (IMHO,) exposes the epicenter in the susceptibility to the infirmities in that system. Cause when does greed follow the rules?
IMO, I find that folks like us here on the board (I'll call it "intellectually astute" - for lack of a better phrase right now!!) .... tend to give 'average Americans"waaaayyyyy too much credit for understanding a variety of (important) complexities ... among them, the very subjects of this thread: economics, politics, the rich/Wall Street, capitalism, etc.
You hit the nail on the head. I could not agree more! Wherein lies also however..98% (there goes that number again!) of our problem...'we the people', ( it seems at least 98% of us!) don't seem to 'pool our power' against the assertions of the rich and greedy due to the lack of general study or fundamental understanding of how the entire system works.
How many actually know who Adam Smith even is? (or rather....was.)
(ER said 'we the people'!)
HA!
Whew!!! 
I'm just gonna AMEN!!! alladat ... and leave it at 'nuff said!!
don't seem to 'pool our power' against the assertions of the rich and greedy due to the lack of general study or fundamental understanding of how the entire system works.
How many actually know who Adam Smith even is? (or rather....was.)
Very few know who Adam Smith was, and even fewer have read 'Wealth of Nations' dispute the fact that he his celebrated as the 'father of modern Capitalism' as a studied discipline.
Its very interesting the choice of the term "pooling" due do the nature and characteristics involved in such an activity.
The problem with putting this on "greed" is that it misses the various reasons for accumulation as defined by the system in use. Why do I keep stressing this?
By declaring that its the greedy (insert person/group), the focus is on that group and not the context of person/groups working. In this respect ER I agree with you in that the political system is a part of the equation, however, its one that has its own axis. Politics deals with the 'Power Relation' in a given society (ie power to make, power to enforce, power to adjudicate rules in society). That power relation intersects with Capitalism but isn't the determination of its nature. However, that gets into a whole nutha conversation that I'm not too sure anyone around here is interested in.
The point is that even IF you change the power relation (and I mean all the way up to overthrowing the existing government/politicians, voting system etc) It doesn't translate into any corresponding change in the economic system.
Post colonial (Africa/Latin America) is filled with this as is the history of the Soviet Union.
Disruption: Technology and Economics for the 99%
The truth is that the continued existence of capitalism is incompatible with the positive potential of robotic automation.
To understand why, we need to look at what drives our social and economic system, and our ruling class: the billionaire owners of the giant corporations and banks.
Any society has, at its foundation, a system for producing and circulating the things we need to live and thrive; in other words, an economy. Ours is capitalist, based on corporate-owned production of commodities for sale on a market.
From around 1800 into the mid-1970s, industrial technology required many people to manufacture goods and provide services. It's how the cycle of capitalism works: enough people must earn enough money from employment to consume what is produced.
http://www.nationofchange.org/...nomics-99-1357915349
Now that article says nothing about planned obsolescence and its effect on their so called capitalism since the end of World War I.
Xum
Disruption: Technology and Economics for the 99%
The truth is that the continued existence of capitalism is incompatible with the positive potential of robotic automation.
To understand why, we need to look at what drives our social and economic system, and our ruling class: the billionaire owners of the giant corporations and banks.
Any society has, at its foundation, a system for producing and circulating the things we need to live and thrive; in other words, an economy. Ours is capitalist, based on corporate-owned production of commodities for sale on a market.
From around 1800 into the mid-1970s, industrial technology required many people to manufacture goods and provide services. It's how the cycle of capitalism works: enough people must earn enough money from employment to consume what is produced.
http://www.nationofchange.org/...nomics-99-1357915349
Now that article says nothing about planned obsolescence and its effect on their so called capitalism since the end of World War I.
Xum
I gotta keep it real, Xum. Part of the reason why planned obsolescence isn't being discussed as much is because of an unwillingness to really dig into the material. The concept isn't new, and can be found discussed (at times in interesting detail) both inside and outside the Marxian tradition.
I gotta keep it real, Xum. Part of the reason why planned obsolescence isn't being discussed as much is because of an unwillingness to really dig into the material. The concept isn't new, and can be found discussed (at times in interesting detail) both inside and outside the Marxian tradition.
Many moons ago, the early 70s I think, I ran across an article which created and discussed two lists. One list was of things that capitalist economists said were wrong with communism. The other list was things communist economists said were wrong with capitalism.
Planned Obsolescence was one of the things the communist economists supposedly listed as wrong with capitalism.
Now this was some time before I noticed that the capitalist economists totally ignored Demand Side Depreciation. And that emphasizes the fact the those economists do not discuss NET Domestic Product, even though it gets half a page in economics text books, but they make a big deal about Gross Domestic Product, which gets pages and pages. I can't see how those two things can be accidental. But how can communist economists not have noticed this peculiar blindness of capitalist economists for decades?
On the one hand I find it really annoying to believe that I am paranoid in addition to being more cynical than when I was young, but sometimes I think these debates are totally artificial and just keep people confused and focused on the wrong things. The Laws of Physics are no different under communism than capitalism. All of these economists should have noticed Demand Side Depreciation in the 40 years since the Moon landing, but none of them talk about it. But a dead economist, Raymond Goldsmith, did mention it in 1952.
If planned obsolescence exists then it increases Demand Side Depreciation. So ignoring that depreciation means helping to shove PO under the rug.
Physics is as REAL as it gets. The problem is people don't get that. Capitalism and Communism are both irrelevant to physics. Reality does not function without it.
Xum
I'd argue that planned obsolescence (from the perspective of a capitalist or free marketer) is a reasonable and acceptable reality....or at worst a "necessary evil". Under capitalism production takes place based on exchange value in the context of a perpetual growth model. From that POV, they wouldn't identify it as a problem, but a condition of existence of sorts.
Now we can take the concept further and not only include the effects of PO, but the effects of a growth model based on unsustainable expansion.
How does PO play itself out, in the context of a 'zero growth' economy? Keeping in mind that growth isn't the same as development.
How does PO play itself out, in the context of a 'zero growth' economy? Keeping in mind that growth isn't the same as development.
Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of capital goods and the means of production, and the creation of goods and services for profit.[1][2][3] Elements central to capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and a price system.[4]
There are multiple variants of capitalism, including laissez-faire, welfare capitalism and state capitalism. Capitalism is considered to have been applied in a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics, and culture.[5] There is general agreement that capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[6]
The problem is the ideas of capitalism going back to Adam Smith while not dealing with how much technology has changed since then.
Capitalism is about PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of assets/capital goods.
A corporation is not private ownership. It is a form of COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP. In fact Adam Smith disapproved of what he called JOINT STOCK COMPANIES which is what we call corporations. Growth made sense in the time of Adam Smith and for more than a century after that. But it began to not make as much sense in the 20th century. It was in the 1920s that the advertising industry began using the concepts of Sigmund Freud to encourage people to consume more and more. Is that really GROWTH?
So we are operating on the inertia of the psychology of European culture and they keep calling it Capitalism but it is nothing but a stupid rationalization for them to refuse to change.
How can economic growth be measured if the waste is not measured and subtracted? It is nothing but a lie to cover up stupid greed. They don't even come up with an excuse to not make double-entry accounting mandatory in the schools. There are no principles of Capitalism to excuse that. Considering that Adam Smith advocated enlightened self interest it would make sense to him.
But we need to distinguish between Capitalism and Economic Game Theory combined with European psychology. They just call it Capitalism. Planned Obsolescence is just a strategy in their economic power game that becomes part of the class warfare and international economic power games.
Xum
Hmm...
That is why this is so much bullsh!t!
Adam Smith died in 1790. Henry Ford didn't start producing the Model-T until 1908. The term planned obsolescence was not coined until the 1920s.
Technology changed whatever was called capitalism in the 20th century.
Holdup. Who said anything about 'market product medthodology'? The thread title is: 'Has Capitalism proven it's Durability'? Not... 'are the 'offspring' (the parts,) of capitalism (the whole) greater as its parts, than the sum of the whole!
I didn't call Adam Smith the 'Father of Capitalism'...the 'sum of his parts' did. And since I'm pretty sure that left field is already occupied, let's try and stay on topic.
That is not what Adam Smith was talking about.
I'm not talikng about 'what Adam Smith was talking about'. I'm talking about the beast that Capitalismis, no more--no less. And how can any subject be effectively broached without beginning from the beginning? Btw, I don't need a 'lesson' in what 'Adam Smith' said.
But if by capitalism you mean the smart people playing economic power games to scam the dumb people then yeah, that's capitalism.
Yeah maybe I was going there...and how Adam Smiths' book 'The Wealth of Nations' had been grotesquely distorted by a so-called modern business community, but by their action's...I would'nt think that they were very 'smart',at all.
So today's Corporate Consumerism may be a form of capitalism...
Hmm (again...) maybe this is what I've been 'talking' about, all along.
But then...maybe we'll never know.
#2. I didn't call Adam Smith the 'Father of Capitalism'.
#1. Just you.
#2. No one said you did.
http://www.vision.org/visionme...-adam-smith/868.aspx
http://www.democraticundergrou...;address=439x2429512
http://rebelparty.org/2012/05/...ds-on-class-warfare/
Sorting through the PR bullsh!t about capitalism and Adam Smith is part of the problem.
But Adam Smith and Karl Marx were not observing an economic system with electricity and moving assembly lines and robots getting better and better. Words and definitions tend to be static while technology keeps changing and people must decide how to implement it.
Xum
But Adam Smith and Karl Marx were not observing an economic system with electricity and moving assembly lines and robots getting better and better. Words and definitions tend to be static while technology keeps changing and people must decide how to implement it.
I started to ask if my words were not lucid/fluid enough before again I realized, there's no need. 'A fool and water will go the way they are diverted'. Afrikan Proverb
"The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm, capitalism is that kind of a system." - Milton Friedman
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - John Maynard Keynes
"Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class." - Al Capone
Xum
Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.
Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.
In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.
With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.
Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.
Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.
http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNe...p;utm_source=taboola
Are Capitalism and Consumerism the same thing?
Consumerism is a 20th century invention but most of our economic philosophy is from the 19th and before. Adam Smith and Karl Marx didn't know anything about consumerism. But consumerism turns the planet's natural resources into garbage. It is unsustainable.
But we never heard these economists saying that accounting should be mandatory in our schools. How would that have affected the economy over the last 50 years? The economists don't know and have not raised the question.
Xum
Adam Smith and Karl Marx didn't know anything about consumerism.
Not according to what I've read (of both men).
Adam Smith and Karl Marx didn't know anything about consumerism.
Not according to what I've read (of both men).
Adam Smith died in 1790 and Marx in 1883.
consumerism (n.) 1944, "protection of the consumer's interest," from consumer + -ism. Also, "encouraging consumption as an economic policy" (1960). Related: Consumerist (1965, n.; 1969, adj.).
http://www.etymonline.com/inde...p?search=consumerism
Consumerism as we use the term did not occur until after the Depression. They talked about consumers and consumption but the technology did not exist to have high enough productivity to make consumerism as we know it possible did not exist in their day.
Xum
They talked about consumers and consumption but the technology did not exist to have high enough productivity to make consumerism as we know it possible did not exist in their day.
What you're describing is the rate of consumption not the concept itself. Marx in vol, 2 and 3 spend quite a bit of time laying out the frameworks for why the logic of Capitalism produces increasing rates of consumption (Capitalism and its perpetual growth model). So Marx wasn't alive to see the development of Taylorism, but he clearly showed the logic that would produce it.
Focusing on the words isn't enough, we gotta go into the content and concepts and check out what's there and actually discussed.
They talked about consumers and consumption but the technology did not exist to have high enough productivity to make consumerism as we know it possible did not exist in their day.
What you're describing is the rate of consumption not the concept itself. Marx in vol, 2 and 3 spend quite a bit of time laying out the frameworks for why the logic of Capitalism produces increasing rates of consumption (Capitalism and its perpetual growth model). So Marx wasn't alive to see the development of Taylorism, but he clearly showed the logic that would produce it.
Focusing on the words isn't enough, we gotta go into the content and concepts and check out what's there and actually discussed.
Sigmund Freud's ideas were not developed at the time of Marx's death and they were not used by the advertising industry until after World War I.
Some word has to be used to describe the hyper-production-consumption cycle which could not exist in the times of Marx and Smith. Then planned obsolescence has to be added to the mix and that term was not coined until the 1920s. It is an aspect of consumerism also along with going into debt for the junk.
But GNP was not developed until the 1930s but to this day the depreciation of durable consumer goods is ignored. The Laws of Physics cannot tell the difference between Capital and Consumer goods but the depreciation of consumer goods has to be a far larger percentage than in the time of Marx.
But we don't know because our economists ignore it. They would look silly to bring it up after saying nothing for 60 years.
Xum
I just learned about Keynes commenting on 2030 a few days ago.
quote:In the long run we are all dead, but not all at the same time. Keynes’ message was simple: extrapolate conservatively the economic growth rate of the modern age so far, and imagine the wonders one hundred years hence: 2030. His audience would not live to see it, but many of their grandchildren would. The great-grandchildren, born in the last quarter of the twentieth century, would climb a stairway to heaven and bask in unknown pleasures from middle age. The generation after that would be born into paradise.
In the best traditions of science fiction, the author fudged the precise workings of the technology behind the wonders. Keynes evidently had little growth theory to draw on: he talks in monetary terms of the wonders of compound interest. Investments simply grow at around 2 percent a year – ask not why. Technology improves, for an improvement in “technical efficiency” of 1 percent a year. Making generous room for more of the “disastrous mistakes” that had brought forth the depression, he predicted that living standards would “in the progressive countries” be four to eight times higher a century on. There would be a phase of “technological unemployment” as labor productivity outpaced the finding of new uses for labor, but ultimately we would work out how to spread the dividends so that everyone worked an average of three hours a day.
I find it really interesting that with all that I have heard and read about Keynes over the decades that this has not been emphasized a lot. Are the workers really indoctrinated to be workers. All of this talk about CAREERS. A career is nothing but a JOB that a person has his EGO wrapped up in. Eliminate planned obsolescence and how many jobs go with it. If accounting had been mandatory in the 50s how many people would have homes paid for and n9ot need to pay rent or mortgages? Couldn't that mean lower wages in the US. Wouldn't that make the US more competitive? Why isn't that a national strategy? Too much class warfare and information hiding?
Xum
