On October 22 2011 08:30 HCastorp wrote: I haven't read it all yet, but this is one of the better discussions of OWS I've seen. TL rarely disappoints!
As far as I can tell no one has yet posted this article, which goes into more detail about the beginnings of the movement than any other that I have seen. It also offers some good analysis.
Naked Capitalism as a whole is a pretty good blog for anyone who is interested in this kind of stuff. For those who find themselves ignorant of much of the basics (I count myself among this group) Khan academy actually has great lectures on banking, finance, the bailout, major regulations such as Glass-Steagal and Dodd-Frank, and other economic topics.
So he compares capitalism with feudalism, because apparently a fully capitalist system just like feudalist system can go ahead and extract wealth via jurisdictional means... But he fails to mention it is the GOVERNMENT that provides these jurisdictional means, and that regulation which he seems to support becomes the TOOL that corporations use to maintain their profits while at the same time both exploiting their worker and customer base...
Not a single time did he mention the difference between capitalism and corporatism.
Then he went on to say that the "real meaning" of being a conservative is not wanting change, when in the political sense this obviously isn't true, and says that Obama would be considered a "conservative moderate" 20 years ago...
20 years ago we've had Carter and Reagan and then GB... if Obama would be considered a conservative moderate, then what the hell would Reagan and GB be? I'm sure he thought that Carter was great and liberal with his quadrillion% unemployment rates...
This guy simply doesn't understand economics... Conservative in the political and economic arena means to be conservative with MONEY. meaning low spending, meaning SMALL GOVERNMENT. Obama is anything but conservative, and in fact the general trend of American history with just a few exceptions is that presidents have been getting consistently more and more liberal... Obama may actually be the most "liberal" president that we've had...
Kiarip,
You, my friend, are a radical. A radical believer in capitalism. You, if you had your dream, would destroy the institutions of power in Washington DC and probably dismantle the corporatist state as it stands today. In contrast, Obama is a conservative, a Washington insider to preserve the status quo. And seriously, George W. Bush was the most "liberal" president before Obama.
On October 22 2011 08:30 HCastorp wrote: I haven't read it all yet, but this is one of the better discussions of OWS I've seen. TL rarely disappoints!
As far as I can tell no one has yet posted this article, which goes into more detail about the beginnings of the movement than any other that I have seen. It also offers some good analysis.
Naked Capitalism as a whole is a pretty good blog for anyone who is interested in this kind of stuff. For those who find themselves ignorant of much of the basics (I count myself among this group) Khan academy actually has great lectures on banking, finance, the bailout, major regulations such as Glass-Steagal and Dodd-Frank, and other economic topics.
So he compares capitalism with feudalism, because apparently a fully capitalist system just like feudalist system can go ahead and extract wealth via jurisdictional means... But he fails to mention it is the GOVERNMENT that provides these jurisdictional means, and that regulation which he seems to support becomes the TOOL that corporations use to maintain their profits while at the same time both exploiting their worker and customer base...
Not a single time did he mention the difference between capitalism and corporatism.
Then he went on to say that the "real meaning" of being a conservative is not wanting change, when in the political sense this obviously isn't true, and says that Obama would be considered a "conservative moderate" 20 years ago...
20 years ago we've had Carter and Reagan and then GB... if Obama would be considered a conservative moderate, then what the hell would Reagan and GB be? I'm sure he thought that Carter was great and liberal with his quadrillion% unemployment rates...
This guy simply doesn't understand economics... Conservative in the political and economic arena means to be conservative with MONEY. meaning low spending, meaning SMALL GOVERNMENT. Obama is anything but conservative, and in fact the general trend of American history with just a few exceptions is that presidents have been getting consistently more and more liberal... Obama may actually be the most "liberal" president that we've had...
Kiarip,
You, my friend, are a radical.
I am a constitutionalist ... Oh God, you're right the time has come when claiming that the government can't just do whatever it or even the majority wishes willy-nilly, and actually has to follow a set of rules that define the purpose of its existence makes you a RADICAL...
A radical believer in capitalism. You, if you had your dream, would destroy the institutions of power in Washington DC and probably dismantle the corporatist state as it stands today.
I don't believe in radical change. I'm talking about Normative economics, I'm not implying that we should go ahead and just have a revolution over it, but any time there's an actual current, already relevant issue of what should be done, I will side and argue for what will bring us closer to a place where corporatism is in fact disassembled.
In contrast, Obama is a conservative, a Washington insider to preserve the status quo. And seriously, George W. Bush was the most "liberal" president before Obama.
Well Obama is definitely not fiscally conservative.
Neither was Bush of course... he was terrible also, but I don't think that the author of that article would argue that Bush was a successful president, he would probably make the argument for Clinton though, however Clinton was in fact more conservative than either Bush or Obama.
Clinton fiscally conservative? Hard pressed to say although he cut government he raised taxes on top earners and larger business and sin businesses, he also created programs to encourage small investments to help communities at the same time highly encouraged higher education and assistance to the poor to get trained and get a job. His first economic plan passed without a single republican vote. Although i guess it's a matter of defining American conservative in politics, because short of expansions of war powers from bush ending up growing government due to running wars also expanding medicare, he did everything in the fiscal conservative hand book, deregulated as much as he could and cut taxes.
On October 22 2011 14:54 semantics wrote: Clinton fiscally conservative? Hard pressed to say although he cut government he raised taxes on top earners and larger business and sin businesses, he also created programs to encourage small investments to help communities at the same time highly encouraged higher education and assistance to the poor to get trained and get a job. His first economic plan passed without a single republican vote. Although i guess it's a matter of defining American conservative in politics, because short of expansions of war powers from bush ending up growing government due to running wars also expanding medicare, he did everything in the fiscal conservative hand book, deregulated as much as he could and cut taxes.
On October 22 2011 08:30 HCastorp wrote: I haven't read it all yet, but this is one of the better discussions of OWS I've seen. TL rarely disappoints!
As far as I can tell no one has yet posted this article, which goes into more detail about the beginnings of the movement than any other that I have seen. It also offers some good analysis.
Naked Capitalism as a whole is a pretty good blog for anyone who is interested in this kind of stuff. For those who find themselves ignorant of much of the basics (I count myself among this group) Khan academy actually has great lectures on banking, finance, the bailout, major regulations such as Glass-Steagal and Dodd-Frank, and other economic topics.
So he compares capitalism with feudalism, because apparently a fully capitalist system just like feudalist system can go ahead and extract wealth via jurisdictional means... But he fails to mention it is the GOVERNMENT that provides these jurisdictional means, and that regulation which he seems to support becomes the TOOL that corporations use to maintain their profits while at the same time both exploiting their worker and customer base...
Not a single time did he mention the difference between capitalism and corporatism.
Then he went on to say that the "real meaning" of being a conservative is not wanting change, when in the political sense this obviously isn't true, and says that Obama would be considered a "conservative moderate" 20 years ago...
20 years ago we've had Carter and Reagan and then GB... if Obama would be considered a conservative moderate, then what the hell would Reagan and GB be? I'm sure he thought that Carter was great and liberal with his quadrillion% unemployment rates...
This guy simply doesn't understand economics... Conservative in the political and economic arena means to be conservative with MONEY. meaning low spending, meaning SMALL GOVERNMENT. Obama is anything but conservative, and in fact the general trend of American history with just a few exceptions is that presidents have been getting consistently more and more liberal... Obama may actually be the most "liberal" president that we've had...
Kiarip,
You, my friend, are a radical.
I am a constitutionalist ... Oh God, you're right the time has come when claiming that the government can't just do whatever it or even the majority wishes willy-nilly, and actually has to follow a set of rules that define the purpose of its existence makes you a RADICAL...
A radical believer in capitalism. You, if you had your dream, would destroy the institutions of power in Washington DC and probably dismantle the corporatist state as it stands today.
I don't believe in radical change. I'm talking about Normative economics, I'm not implying that we should go ahead and just have a revolution over it, but any time there's an actual current, already relevant issue of what should be done, I will side and argue for what will bring us closer to a place where corporatism is in fact disassembled.
In contrast, Obama is a conservative, a Washington insider to preserve the status quo. And seriously, George W. Bush was the most "liberal" president before Obama.
Well Obama is definitely not fiscally conservative.
Neither was Bush of course... he was terrible also, but I don't think that the author of that article would argue that Bush was a successful president, he would probably make the argument for Clinton though, however Clinton was in fact more conservative than either Bush or Obama.
I think he was complimenting you, only using terms as they are not usually meant. He doesn't mean radical in the violent way, but in the 'full and to the extreme' way. He doesn't mean conservative in the "Republicans are conservative" way, but in the staying with the status quo way.
I don't believe in radical change. I'm talking about Normative economics, I'm not implying that we should go ahead and just have a revolution over it, but any time there's an actual current, already relevant issue of what should be done, I will side and argue for what will bring us closer to a place where corporatism is in fact disassembled.
I completely agree that we need to get closer to a place where corporate influence on public life is disassembled.
I suppose I just don't see how advocating or moving towards a more 'pure' form (whatever that is) of capitalism (if I understand your stance correctly) will disassemble corporatism. All available evidence I've seen points to exactly the opposite.
I completely agree that we need to get closer to a place where corporate influence on public life is disassembled.
As soon as you agree with extending the same standard to unions and to all non-party organizations I agree too.
Which of course runs afoul of the First Amendment on so many levels you have to just stick your head in the sand to imagine that it would be okay.
I suppose I just don't see how advocating or moving towards a more 'pure' form (whatever that is) of capitalism (if I understand your stance correctly) will disassemble corporatism. All available evidence I've seen points to exactly the opposite.
Then your sources of evidence are limited. I'll give a brief example: the American steel industry that eventually became the United States Steel Corporation monopoly.
You couldn't have a monopoly without the backing of at least several state legislatures, back then you literally needed to get an act of incorporation passed to actually start a corporation.
Next there was the steel tariff, which destroyed the advantage British and German steel held in the world market.
Then there were huge land and money subsidies to the railroads, which bought iron and then steel rails from manufacturers that they often had a hand in creating (Carnegie Steel was the eventual result of the partnership between the Keystone Bridge Company, Union Iron Mills, and Pennsylvania Railroad).
Then there was favorable treatment from state and local governments to break up strikes with sheriffs, deputized Pinkertons and state militia if that was necessary to open a factory up for scabs.
Government contracts for naval guns and naval armor, etc., were given out at ridiculous profit margins in return for the hefty political contributions of the industrialists.
Every large city was controlled by a political machine that existed for the business of taking bribes and doling out favors.
At every step of the way in the building of a monopoly you find the hand of government assuring the success of the monopoly.
Without government, the only power around is the money in the hands of the masses of consumers and that is much harder for a corporation to get its hands on and manipulate.
I don't believe in radical change. I'm talking about Normative economics, I'm not implying that we should go ahead and just have a revolution over it, but any time there's an actual current, already relevant issue of what should be done, I will side and argue for what will bring us closer to a place where corporatism is in fact disassembled.
I completely agree that we need to get closer to a place where corporate influence on public life is disassembled.
I suppose I just don't see how advocating or moving towards a more 'pure' form (whatever that is) of capitalism (if I understand your stance correctly) will disassemble corporatism. All available evidence I've seen points to exactly the opposite.
Doesn't make much sense to me either. Corporatism comes precisely from unregulated market.
Pity that this thread has turned into a Friedman fest of right wing libertarians.
I completely agree that we need to get closer to a place where corporate influence on public life is disassembled.
Without government, the only power around is the money in the hands of the masses of consumers and that is much harder for a corporation to get its hands on and manipulate.
You really think that its hard for a corporation to manipulate consumers? You give people way more credit than is due.
I completely agree that we need to get closer to a place where corporate influence on public life is disassembled.
Without government, the only power around is the money in the hands of the masses of consumers and that is much harder for a corporation to get its hands on and manipulate.
You really think that its hard for a corporation to manipulate consumers? You give people way more credit than is due.
No offense to him but DeepElemBlue is the exact equivalent of French Trotskists or hardcore communists who still believe that Soviet Union was great and that Leninism is the way forward. It's contradicted by the facts, by pure logic, by common sense, but they do believe in it and will curve reality as much as necessary to make it match their ideology. The only difference is that he is at the opposite side of the political spectrum.
The idea that huge corporations have an enormous power that can be a source of oppression doesn't cross his mind.
On October 23 2011 01:01 DeepElemBlues wrote: Without government, the only power around is the money in the hands of the masses of consumers and that is much harder for a corporation to get its hands on and manipulate.
Yeah, it's going to be a nightmare scenario for the corporations. Instead of control the powerful corporations have now via a proxy (the government), they're going to simply have direct control instead. I can't imagine why they would want that. -_-
Yeah, it's going to be a nightmare scenario for the corporations. Instead of control the powerful corporations have now via a proxy (the government), they're going to simply have direct control instead.
You give too much credit to corporations.
Doesn't make much sense to me either. Corporatism comes precisely from unregulated market.
And you cannot pick a single historical example to prove this assertion because none exist.
Corporatism comes precisely from government intervention in the market. It's a non-arguable fact. It's not an ideological argument, it is what actually happened if you actually look at the historical facts of the times.
You really think that its hard for a corporation to manipulate consumers? You give people way more credit than is due.
Edsel, New Coke, Microsoft Millenium or whatever it was... come on now, let's stop mouthing slogans and really think.
You really think it is so easy for corporations to "manipulate" people? Your low opinion of the common mass of humanity is either a delusion of grandeur on your part, or a low opinion of yourself as well.
No offense to him but DeepElemBlue is the exact equivalent of French Trotskists or hardcore communists who still believe that Soviet Union was great and that Leninism is the way forward. It's contradicted by the facts, by pure logic, by common sense, but they do believe in it and will curve reality as much as necessary to make it match their ideology. The only difference is that he is at the opposite side of the political spectrum.
No offense to you Biff but you are the exact equivalent of what you say I am. You will simply assert that facts, pure logic, and common sense back you up, and you'll repeatedly ignore my historical examples to the contrary of your assertions.
You curve reality as much as necessary to match your ideology.
You are projecting what you do yourself onto me, do me the courtesy of not insulting my intelligence with it please.
Actually that was just snarky; all you're really doing is trying to assassinate my character with a pseudo-authoritative attacking paragraph with no reason or support for it. Ironic considering what you accuse me of. Essentially your great refutation here is that I disagree with you so I am like some archaic Trotskyist impervious to all intelligence. That's it. No proof for it, not even an argument of reasoning, just this is so so this is so.
It's dumb.
The idea that huge corporations have an enormous power that can be a source of oppression doesn't cross his mind.
Actually Biff you're smart enough to know that this is not the case, you know I have repeatedly mentioned things like corporations using the power of the state to break strikes, you're just posturing. You know what you're saying is just what you wish was true about me.
No offense to him but DeepElemBlue is the exact equivalent of French Trotskists or hardcore communists who still believe that Soviet Union was great and that Leninism is the way forward. It's contradicted by the facts, by pure logic, by common sense, but they do believe in it and will curve reality as much as necessary to make it match their ideology.
Pretty much sums it up. He's just here to hijack this OWS thread with his whacky ideas.
I don't believe in radical change. I'm talking about Normative economics, I'm not implying that we should go ahead and just have a revolution over it, but any time there's an actual current, already relevant issue of what should be done, I will side and argue for what will bring us closer to a place where corporatism is in fact disassembled.
I completely agree that we need to get closer to a place where corporate influence on public life is disassembled.
I suppose I just don't see how advocating or moving towards a more 'pure' form (whatever that is) of capitalism (if I understand your stance correctly) will disassemble corporatism. All available evidence I've seen points to exactly the opposite.
Doesn't make much sense to me either. Corporatism comes precisely from unregulated market.
Pity that this thread has turned into a Friedman fest of right wing libertarians.
It actually hasn't-- its a really vocal minority. A few pages back some were making new accounts, it was getting pretty obvious. I've been following the thread pretty closely-- someone had a single idea, a very narrow perspective on government involvement in the economy, and within a few hours 6 or 7 people who had never posted before in the thread (some with single digit post counts) were spouting identical, reworded perspectives.
Yeah, it's going to be a nightmare scenario for the corporations. Instead of control the powerful corporations have now via a proxy (the government), they're going to simply have direct control instead.
Doesn't make much sense to me either. Corporatism comes precisely from unregulated market.
And you cannot pick a single historical example to prove this assertion because none exist.
Corporatism comes precisely from government intervention in the market. It's a non-arguable fact. It's not an ideological argument, it is what actually happened if you actually look at the historical facts of the times.
You really think that its hard for a corporation to manipulate consumers? You give people way more credit than is due.
Edsel, New Coke, Microsoft Millenium or whatever it was... come on now, let's stop mouthing slogans and really think.
You really think it is so easy for corporations to "manipulate" people? Your low opinion of the common mass of humanity is either a delusion of grandeur on your part, or a low opinion of yourself as well.
Your arguments would kind of make sense for someone who would believe that the interest of the corporations always match the interest of the people.
Unfortunately, it's enough to have a pair of eyes, a functional brain and not be completely blinded by your ideological standpoint to realize that it's very very very far from being the case.
You just consider the way your food industry is working, the fact that 30,9 your population is obese, and you get it.
Or, you consider the fact that a quarter of people in jail in the world are in jail in America. That's more than a fucking % of your people in jail. And now, consider the fact that your private prison industry (have to be stupid, yeah, to give prisons to private interests) spends 400 millions dollars lobbying every year so that senators keep voting moire and more and more repressing laws.
Or the fact that you went to two useless stupid wars for the benefit of your militaro-industrial complex.
Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...
France is far from being perfect, but private companies are regulated and have much less freedom than in America. Our obesity rate is 9%, three times less than yours, our population in jail is 0,01%, ten times less than yours, we didn't go in Irak because we knew it was pointless etc etc...
We can also talk about Fox News and unregulated media or the fact that your wild finance system is directly responsible for the subprimes crisis.
But you right. Companies are talking care of you and all the power is in the hands of consumer.
Yeah, it's going to be a nightmare scenario for the corporations. Instead of control the powerful corporations have now via a proxy (the government), they're going to simply have direct control instead.
Doesn't make much sense to me either. Corporatism comes precisely from unregulated market.
And you cannot pick a single historical example to prove this assertion because none exist.
Corporatism comes precisely from government intervention in the market. It's a non-arguable fact. It's not an ideological argument, it is what actually happened if you actually look at the historical facts of the times.
You really think that its hard for a corporation to manipulate consumers? You give people way more credit than is due.
Edsel, New Coke, Microsoft Millenium or whatever it was... come on now, let's stop mouthing slogans and really think.
You really think it is so easy for corporations to "manipulate" people? Your low opinion of the common mass of humanity is either a delusion of grandeur on your part, or a low opinion of yourself as well.
No offense to him but DeepElemBlue is the exact equivalent of French Trotskists or hardcore communists who still believe that Soviet Union was great and that Leninism is the way forward. It's contradicted by the facts, by pure logic, by common sense, but they do believe in it and will curve reality as much as necessary to make it match their ideology. The only difference is that he is at the opposite side of the political spectrum.
No offense to you Biff but you are the exact equivalent of what you say I am. You will simply assert that facts, pure logic, and common sense back you up, and you'll repeatedly ignore my historical examples to the contrary of your assertions.
You curve reality as much as necessary to match your ideology.
You are projecting what you do yourself onto me, do me the courtesy of not insulting my intelligence with it please.
Actually that was just snarky; all you're really doing is trying to assassinate my character with a pseudo-authoritative attacking paragraph with no reason or support for it. Ironic considering what you accuse me of. Essentially your great refutation here is that I disagree with you so I am like some archaic Trotskyist impervious to all intelligence. That's it. No proof for it, not even an argument of reasoning, just this is so so this is so.
The idea that huge corporations have an enormous power that can be a source of oppression doesn't cross his mind.
Actually Biff you're smart enough to know that this is not the case, you know I have repeatedly mentioned things like corporations using the power of the state to break strikes, you're just posturing. You know what you're saying is just what you wish was true about me.
So, if corporations are strong enough and influential enough to bend the state, which is supposed to represent the collective will of the people, explain to the thread how exactly creating a power vacuum with no teeth to counteract corporate influence is supposed to prevent these abuses?
It's like saying, well, the Nazis were only violent to the people who opposed them. If nobody opposed them, there wouldn't be any violence.
Its a weird argument. I don't think anyone buys it.
Sorry, I didn't know this thread was an OWS direct democracy local complex solution diversity of opinions zone where dissent isn't allowed.
You're being attacked for having an argumentative style in which you grasp anything and everything (reality be damned), to support your opinion and oppose the opinion of others. It's a pain in the ass for readers who actually want to have or follow a normal discussion about things because it's indistinguishable from trolling, propaganda or subtle mental illness.
You really think that its hard for a corporation to manipulate consumers? You give people way more credit than is due.
Edsel, New Coke, Microsoft Millenium or whatever it was... come on now, let's stop mouthing slogans and really think.
You really think it is so easy for corporations to "manipulate" people? Your low opinion of the common mass of humanity is either a delusion of grandeur on your part, or a low opinion of yourself as well.
Pointing out that some products have failed due to low demand is a non sequitur. The fact is that people can never be experts at everything and when making a decisions companies will use their informational advantage to manipulate however they can. Monster cables, exploding Ford Pintos, diamond wedding rings, Activision in general, predatory ARMs, walmart charging extra half cents, this list could go on forever.
EPT
