Forum Post: Damn Those Capitalists
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 1:06 p.m. EST by Republicae
(81)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What economic system has been responsible for the greatest rise in the standard of living of people in the history of the world? What economic system has provided more opportunities than any other economic system in the world? What economic system provides the greatest availability of products and services available to the widest portion of the population?
No, it is not, nor has it ever been Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Totalitarianism, Fascism or the multitudes of other isms that have made their way onto the world’s stage throughout history, it is, in fact, the free-market, capitalist system that makes it all possible.
Look around your home, look at what you have in your hands, look at your clothes, look in your refrigerator and freezer, look at the shelves in the grocery stores, in the clothing stores, in the electronic stores, at the car dealerships...look around the streets..what do you see? You see the results of the market, of capitalism!
It is however, important to understand that something else has arisen within the capitalist system, it is much older than capitalism and it is called mercantilism or our modern word is corporatism, which mixes the power of government patronage with corporate power. It is a system of corruption, of political power that brings about an ever increasing disparity between the beneficiaries of government patronage and those who don’t. The problem is not, nor has it ever been, the voluntary actions of people who are seeking the greatest benefit from the market, the capitalist market place. The problems are in a political mentality that permeates both the Republican and Democratic Parties, a system of mercantilism has saturated our government and it is the problem we face today, not capitalism, not even the profit from capitalism. For without profit you and I would not enjoy either the standard of living we do today nor any of the wonderful products available to us in the marketplace.
We live the way we live due to the profits made by others. Wealth, and the generation of profits from invested wealth, is employed as the main means of production of all goods and services that each of enjoy on a daily basis, without it we would all, every single one of us not be able to enjoy the type of lifestyle we do in this country. Without it, you and I would essentially be relegated to a life of providing all the necessities of our lives by ourselves, we might be able to trade some of the goods we produce to our neighbors, but all in all, we would be very limited to a life that would correspond to those who lived in earlier ages where subsistence on a very small scale was all that was available to us.
"What economic system has been responsible for the greatest rise in the standard of living of people in the history of the world?"
Embedded liberalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_liberalism
What followed and has seen the decline of all these things?
Neoliberalism - aka 'idolatry of the market.'
Oh, and, FDR and embedded liberalism saved capitalism from the doom foreseen by Marx, and laid the groundwork for its triumph. Friedman and Reagan have set it on the path to self-destruction, and will ultimately prove Marx right, unless we get a clue.
Well put!
Resist your knee-jerk, bleeding-heart tendency to reform ... just allow the economic system to destroy itself once and for all. Be prepared for the fallout ... that's my MO.
You mean the standard of living of 3% to 4% of the global population, at the expense of everyone else. Yes, that's us as Americans.
I am sympathetic to this viewpoint. It's time to do it right. I believe we can maintain relative prosperity in a much more sustainable way, but not unless government gets involved - specifically with regards to developing alternative energy on a massive scale, and to working towards much fairer trade policies.
Actually much of the world has seen an increase in the standard of living in the past couple of decades. Most of this is due to increased electronic communications that has changed the way the world does business.
the classical liberalism is libertarianism..... It is unfortunate these terms are thrown around so loosly but Nobel Peace prize winner Friedrich Hayek describes it perfectly in his book...Road to Serfdom.
How's the Ron Lawl campaign treating you? Do you get tired of pretending you're something you're not?
Liberalism was defined by its progressivism, your philosophy is a regressive rehashing of laissez faire immorality. The only differences between classical liberalism and modern (pre-neo) liberalism are those of your revisionist history. Rousseau and Locke.
Hmm....the ad homs always give away the troll status but...If you would care to look up the word....Liberty...and where the word liberal and liberalism stems from...you would maybe get the linguistics part of it?
Liberty in the face of Monarchs. Liberty of self-determination and self-governance. Democracy. The social contract. The common good. Move on.
Btw embedded liberalism is a well-defined academic term, as is neoliberalism. Look them up before you step outside of your campaign literature comfort zone.
Oh here she goes. All hail Hayek (and Paul). Just remember who they serve. The great god profit.
Exactly. You understand this so well.
Ignore "her."
I just love how "she" adapts the spin according to the discussion. She comes in here, first to argue against actual liberalism with its focus on the common good, in favor of pure libertarian individualism and laissez faire. Then, spins to holding up Hayek as a great defender of the role of government in society, and even collectivism. It's ridiculous.
Right, well, the obvious goal is to make Ron Lawl palatable to as wide a variety of audiences as possible. Which is always his MO. Has there ever been a politician so talented at twisting liberal college students? It's a common theme adopted by libertarians. They are soo sympathetic to your social causes, and you don't even see the social darwinism until it broadsides you.
and withliberals..Hayek is referring to libertarians... ;)
Don't let your schooling get in the way of your education ;)
and don't believe everything you are being told. Look up the facts.
Quoting Hayek "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism".[
and with liberals...Hayek is referring to Libertarians ;)
don't let your schooling get in the way of your education. Look up the facts instead.
Friedrich Hayek "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism".[
How disrespectful you are..Why? Because I actually refer to a Nobel Peace prize winner who's books I read instead of googling personal opinions on the internet which are held by people who never read his actual works?
Doesn't it get more intellectual dishonest then that?
am the last person to deny that increased wealth and the increased density of population have enlarged the number of collective needs which government can and should statisfy. Hayek, New Studies
Far from advocating a "minimal state", we find it unquestionable that in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided or cannot be provided adequately by the market. Hayek, "Law, Legislation, and Liberty" 1982
Its always fun...to debunk those that 'think' they know what they are talking about ;)
Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rough rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez-faire. Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom" p.18 U of Chicago Press 1972
You turn to your only source, a master of rebranding laissez faire in a nobler package, of re-defining liberalism itself, for a definition of liberalism? Echo chamber intellectualism. What did you just do a keyword search?
Yep, keyword search.
Only the best baby ;) Only the best.
Why? Because Hayek made more sense than anybody and these quotes explain why? Not hardcore lassaiz faire capitalism as you claim but brilliant and thorough explanations for all shortcomings....
Some interesting quotes from Hayek:
Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rough rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez-faire. Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom" p.18 U of Chicago Press 1972
Far from advocating a "minimal state", we find it unquestionable that in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided or cannot be provided adequately by the market. Hayek, "Law, Legislation, and Liberty" 1982
I am the last person to deny that increased wealth and the increased density of population have enlarged the number of collective needs which government can and should statisfy. Hayek, New Studies
lol, Friedrich Hayek sang the praises of Pinochet and other fascists.
Good piece: http://bloodandtreasure.typepad.com/blood_treasure/2006/11/hayekian_dictat.html
Note the use of "liberal" within is the Hayekian economic "classical" liberal.
Like that matters in the slightest.
Really?
He warned against the dangers of collectivism. Fascism is a form of collectivism.
Is this what American public school has done? Destroy linguistics and the quest to actually pick up a book............AND READ?
My advice to you...don't let your schooling stand in the way of your education. The American public school system is at the forefront of the indoctrination process and the absence of independent critical thinking is painfully becoming quite apparent..
It amazes me how many people idolize FDR when he round-up 10 million Americans and threw them in prison for the "crime" of being asian. Even before that he was jailing farmers and citizens who refused to comply with 1930s-era rationing laws, and his price-fixing caused rampant shortages across the continent that caused starvation.
FDR is now being re-examined by modern economists, and what they are revealing is not pretty. While the depression ended quickly over in Europe, FDR's policies made the US depression extend all the way to 1950 (when the DOW index finally returned to 1928 levels).
FDR damaged the economy, harassed private citizens, and imprisoned millions of innocent Americans in direct violation of their 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendment rights.
Good reading: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth
Um.
All that link shows is that selling weapons to the UK and Canada in 1939 helped boost the US economy. It reinforces the "war ended depression" viewpoint.
Also what many ignore is that after WW2 ended, the depression came back in full force (i.e. industrial output plummeted). The DOW index never returned to 1928 levels until 1950. You can verify that yourself on any stock website.
WWII - aka a Keynesian spending program.
Oh please. The postwar years were a boom time. People still remember it - you'll have to swing back around and try your revisionism again in a few more years. The stock market then, as now, is of little relevance to actual prosperity.
http://economics.about.com/od/useconomichistory/a/post_war.htm
There was a major recession immediately after WW2. Millions were without jobs for several years. Look it up and you'll see that's true.
Oooh 5.2% unemployment as a product of demobilization from the biggest war in our history. You're not worth it troll, but here:
'The decline in government spending at the end of World War II led to an enormous drop in gross domestic product, making this technically a recession. This was the result of demobilization and the shift from a wartime to peacetime economy. The post-war years were unusual in a number of ways (unemployment was never high) and this era may be considered a "sui generis end-of-the-war recession"''
"The recession of 1945 was a brief, mild downturn which occurred as the U.S. demobilized from World War 2."
Spamming shows you for your true wormy self..
At least I'm not going round destroying people's personal coffee shops, bookstores, and livelihoods. Did you see the black woman on TV last night CRYING because she now has to declare bankruptcy? Shameful. (That crap never happened at our Tea Party rallies.)
Yeah I have a viewpoint (which is shared by other economists like Ph.D. Walter E Williams and Thomas Sowell).
But at least I'm not violent.
All I do is post online.
And you can easily ignore me, rather than resort to name-calling.
You come in and say 10 MILLION ASIANS were put in PRISON - it was 110,000 Japanese-Americans, not ALL asians; they were in camps, with their families, and it was a mistake, but they were paranoid, angry times after Pearl Harbor...
You say he's been re-examined by modern economists - yes, ideological ones, mostly on the Austrian side of things, and they knew to wait until the people who were grateful to FDR for their lives were dead...
Then you go on to make up shit about the postwar economy - which was actually great, and ignore all of the other information in this thread and that I provided to you...
Then you seek refuge behind right-wing hacks like Sowell...
And after spamming your same message several times in this thread and another...
You get all sensitive?
You'll note that I was DISCUSSING ideas.
You were the one who made it personal with the unnecessary name-calling. Why is that? We Tea partiers have also been called "racist" by people like Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, MSNBC reporters, and folks down on the street (at OWS).
It's ridiculous.
Fail
FDR and his New Deal program actually prolonged the Great Depression by increasing income taxes, which was only relieved by WWII. Also, the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 is the origin of our current crisis, made by the banks for the banks and of the banks. You should check out the book the Creature from Jekyll Island
Revisionist history. Check this out re: FDR's taxes that long outlived him (until 1980-82): http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
Unemployment declined every year from 1933-1940 except 1938 when FDR listened to the GOP and cut back on the New Deal. GDP grew every year except 1938 as well. The rest of the world was in free fall. There was no trade or commerce and without government spending it would have been total collapse. Then, yes, things took off even more during the Keynesian economic stimulus known as WWII.
Unemployment (% labor force)
1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19
1939 17.2
1940 14.6
Percent change GDP
1933 -4%
1934 15%
1935 10%
1936 13%
1937 9%
1938 -7%
1939 7%
1940 9%
How would you feel about 15% economic growth today?
Well, anyway it's irrelevant because it couldn't work today. Not because it couldn't work, but because Republicans would do everything in their power to make it not work. After all, government is an evil thing that must be vanquished so that corporations can do the good work they do. I've been thinking that maybe Republicans should propose a bill removing "and to the republic for which it stands" from the pledge of allegiance, after all the flag is a sacred thing but the government is a vile repugnant tumor that should be rooted out, clearly.
FDR taxed everything, from matches, chewing gum, cards, juice, soft drinks, butter, margarine, movie tickets, phone calls and a host of other items that were mainly geared toward a poorer population. The fact of the matter was that the New Deal was maintained on the backs of the poor and the middle classes. Thus, consumers had much less money to buy things and therefore, companies had less money to create jobs and grow their businesses. It was a disaster. Job destruction, caused by the policies of FDR, prolonged an averaged unemployment of 17% throughout the 1930s.
The NIRA, in fact cut production in an effort to increase wages, the result, of course, was that those wages were far beyond market levels which made it far more expensive to hire employees. That one act, in fact, decreased black employees in various industries by a half-a-million alone. The Agricultural Adjustment Act but farm production eliminating mainly black tenant farmers. Of course, we never hear about these things or of the fact that the NLRA pretty much gave unions a bargaining power that was almost tantamount to a monopoly power, this lead to horrible strikes, compulsory unionization which pushed wages beyond market demand which in turn triggered massive layoffs, leading to what can be described as a depression within a depression in 1938.
In fact, the New Deal killed jobs from the very beginning and the truth is that it didn’t create productive jobs but transferred massive amounts of the people’s hard earned money into taxation that was used to finance New Deal projects. Consumers had much less to actually buy goods, things that would have stimulated the economy. Additionally, most of the programs of the New Deal were intentionally designed to channel money and programs away from the Southern States and instead it was used to essentially buy votes in the East and West. FDR crushed consumers. FDR banned discounting through the Anti-Chain Store Act and the Retail Price Maintenance Act. FDR dispossessed thousands of people, mainly those who were very poor, particularly black sharecroppers in the Tennessee Valley through the policies of the Tennessee Valley Authority, which flooded nearly a million acres. Many, if not most, of those poor farmers and sharecroppers never received compensation from the government, in other words the land was stolen.
By 1939, one of FDR’s best friends, and the Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified before the House Ways and Means Committee: “I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemploment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot.” Even people in his own Administration knew the New Deal was a failure.
Henry Hazlitt gave a very accurate assessment of the New Deal: “Every dollar of government spending must be raised through a dollar of taxation, the bridge has to be paid out of taxes...therefore, for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else...all that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project.” That was the case with every New Deal project, it was a diversion of money from the private sector, in the form of taxation, into the hands of government. The net benefit was null.
In 1939, the American Institute of Public Opinion conducted a very broad sampling of business in the country, asking a simply question: "Do you think the attitude of the Roosevelt administration toward business is delaying business recovery?" Most businesses said that the administration’s policies delayed the recovery instead of helping the economy.
Of course, besides all that, a very good book could be written about FDR’s re-election tricks, in which he created programs just prior to the election only to do away with them immediately after he won his re-election. It was one of the largest wholesale vote buying schemes in the history of this country.
"The fact of the matter was that the New Deal was maintained on the backs of the poor and the middle classes."
So, basically, you're just trying to convince us that FDR was a modern day Republican??
It's really a pathetic argument when you think it through. Even if it were true, it makes the idea of a stimulus using taxes from the top 1% untested and much more palatable compared to the stimulus in your revisionist history.
"The Agricultural Adjustment Act but farm production eliminating mainly black tenant farmers."
Another example of revisionist history. What I love about reading this is your pathetic attempt to convince others that you're so fiscally conservative because you actually give a damn about poor or black people when it's completely transparent that you're just rationalizing your unpatriotic greed and asinine faith in the divinity of free markets.
"FDR dispossessed thousands of people, mainly those who were very poor, particularly black sharecroppers in the Tennessee Valley through the policies of the Tennessee Valley Authority, which flooded nearly a million acres."
LOL! Need I mention how transparent you are again??
"By 1939, one of FDR’s best friends, and the Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified before the House Ways and Means Committee: “I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemploment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot.” Even people in his own Administration knew the New Deal was a failure."
Notice the ellipses within a quote. When you see that, do you cast doubt on the intentional omission of what was said or do you just completely embrace everything you read in chain e-mails that feed your preconceptions??
After only reading the first half of your post, there's enough nonsense for me to know that the other half is not worth reading and probably wasn't worth typing.
Ha, ha....you are free to view the same Congressional Reports that state the numbers of farmers, workers, particular black sharecroppers and tenant workers during that period, they are there in the Archives for anyone, at least anyone who wants to know the truth, to read.
Additionally, the testimony of Henry Morgenthau is also available in it full text, the use of ellipses is simply to save space on this limited format. However, since these figures are readily available, it would appear that the one who is transparent is, in fact, you. For you deride documentation that would prove that your position is not what it seems and the revisionism is on your part, not on the part of the documentation I cite.
"Ha, ha....you are free to view the same Congressional Reports that state the numbers of farmers"
Actually, the Congressional Reports showed the exact opposite of everything you said. I wouldn't laugh if I were you. Unless you're laughing at the fact that you've continued to make claims without substantiating them
"Additionally, the testimony of Henry Morgenthau is also available in it full text, the use of ellipses is simply to save space on this limited format. "
Then find it right now and prove that you're not a shameless fraud. Go ahead. You can post links to the citation. Or at least post the whole quote.
"For you deride documentation that would prove that your position is not what it seems and the revisionism is on your part, not on the part of the documentation I cite."
YOU DIDN'T CITE ANYTHING..
I hate to resort to all capitals, but it is a solid fact that you haven't cited a single one of your claims. All you've done is exactly what I've accused you of by claiming that you've cited things and insisted that what you claim is fact even though you haven't proven any of it.
I've made my case, but others wondering about your non-stop FDR-smearing revisionist history can check this out:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth
Actually, you have not made a case at all, you have simply continued to spew out the same tripe that has been spewed out for years and years. You have yet to make a case against anything that I have written. I have not smeared FDR, just stating facts. Facts are a difficult thing don't you think? They tend to upset those whose stomachs have eaten the same historical crap for years.
But I definitely like the way you fall back on that buzz-word "revisionist" it doesn't strengthen your argument.
I believe he has made his case, You have not made yours. Repeating the phrase, "facts are difficult things" when what you have presented are only fringe opinions, isn't convincing.
" You have yet to make a case against anything that I have written. I have not smeared FDR, just stating facts. Facts are a difficult thing don't you think?"
Where the hell were your facts??
I saw none. Only hearsay that you got from chain e-mails and wikipedia articles along with accusations with nothing to back them up.
looselyhuman actually posted the unemployment statistics and the policies which coincided with them.
You're a shameless fraud.
I actually wonder whether you people are so self-absorbed that you actually believe in your twisted definition of what "facts" are or if you just insist they are facts because you think we'll eventually believe they are.
Actually everyone is a revisionist. two people can watch the same scene of whatever and when asked to describe it you will not get the same story from each. It's like the old game where you sit in a circle and whisper something to the person next to you who repeats it to the next person,etc. By the time it gets back to you it will be nothing like your original statement.
You see no facts because you have made up your mind not to look for them. As I said, the documentation is online in the Congressional Record. Go search out those facts, perhaps they will knock you on your fraudulent ass. Speaking of unemployment statistics, have you ever seen the various ways those statistics are arrived at, it is interesting because the manner of their calculation changes from time to time to fit certain needs, particularly political needs, for instance if you calculated unemployment today as it was calculated prior to the Administration of Clinton you would find that instead of our present unemployment being a 9.2% it is more like 18%, but that is a political expediency. Loosely human has posted some unemployment statistics and as we all know, statistics rely on the statistician. Numbers go in and numbers come out, depending on what the desired affect might be. So, if you are saying that he has provided facts, then you too are mistaken, he has provided a particular set of statistics based on a particular view of the subject.
"As I said, the documentation is online in the Congressional Record."
CITE IT.
My god, you're like an immature teenager that just keeps whining that grownups don't trust you enough. As for your unemployment conspiracy theories, I just don't care much for Alex Jones or Glenn Beck or whatever you crackpots are following nowadays.
Now back up what you claim or continue being a fraud.
We'll let the people decide.
Another good piece that refutes most of this while conceding the point about the NIRA:
http://uneasymoney.com/2011/09/26/misrepresenting-the-recovery-from-the-great-depression/
Hmmmm...so, you are telling me that since the measurement of GDP during the 30s was due to actual industrial output? Factually, that is not true, for those measurements, including those during the war years included government output and outlays, which they conveniently plopped into the measurement of the Gross Domestic Product. The fact is that there were several distortions taking place that people, like yourself, never consider, for you simply and superficially read the commonly digested history that is as distorted as the New Deal itself. This was especially true when the War began.
Revisionism? Hmmm....read the 2004 Journal of Political Economy entitled "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis," by Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, now they just happen to be macroeconomists, who did, to one degree or another, follow many of the theories of Keynes, that is until they actually started putting the popular accepted version of the New Deal to the test. Additionally, they found that nearly every single policy and program that FDR instituted during The Great Depression made things worse, not better. So, here you have two economists who would normally be in the camp that lauded praise on the New Deal, and in fact, who had in the past, but due to the fact that they put away the myths of the New Deal and Great Depression, those commonly cited, as you cite them, they found that history, in fact, needed to be revised to reflect the actual truth instead of the myths.
"so, you are telling me that since the measurement of GDP during the 30s was due to actual industrial output" Yes.
http://www.ourfuture.org/files/images/Depression-GDP-output-2.gif
From: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth
Also Cole/Ohanian employment claims refuted:
http://www.salon.com/2009/02/02/the_new_deal_worked/
Excerpt:
That means, everyone who got a job during the Great Depression via the Works Progress Administration (WPA) or Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), or any other of Roosevelt’s popular New Deal workfare programs, doesn’t get counted as employed in the statistics used by Cole, Ohanian and Shlaes.
Let us reflect, for a moment, on what the men and women employed by those programs achieved (aside from earning cash to buy food and pay for shelter, of course). In his paper, “Time for a New, New Deal,” Marshall Auerback (pointed to by economist James Galbraith) summarizes:
The government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York’s Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.
It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country’s entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.
In other words, millions of men and women earned a living wage and self-respect and contributed mightily to the national infrastructure. But, according to the statistics as interpreted on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, they were unemployed.
Also, on claims New Deal programs extended the depression:
The bottom line conservative position on the New Deal is that, theoretically speaking, the economy would have returned to “normal” more quickly if FDR had refrained from interfering with the workings of the free market through his vast array of interventionist programs. Sadly for them, we never got a chance to find out, because the situation in 1933, when Roosevelt took office, demanded government action. Twenty-five percent of the nation was unemployed. Human suffering was immense. If the market had been left to work its problems out all by itself, further suffering in the near term would have been unimaginable. And not just unimaginable — but also politically unacceptable.
"here you have two economists who would normally be in the camp that lauded praise"
Yeah, writing for the Wall Street Journal.
There you go, annoying people with facts again.
:-)
"Yeah, writing for the Wall Street Journal."
Boom.
The first portion of the New Deal, that of 1933, was abandoned by FDR, the second portion between 1934 to 1936 was a complete failure. If you read the writings of FDR, including his memos to the various members of his cabinet and, in particular, The Brain Trust, you will find that he discarded parts of his original New Deal policies because they were obviously ineffective, but then he imposed other policies that were equally ineffective and he states that as fact, all the while playing the politician in public. By 1936, you will find that FDR had pretty much settled into the idea he could skate through until the end of his term as President. The depression never got better, it was just taken off center stage by being upstaged by the policies of the New Deal.
When talking to Henry Morgenthau, he, in a depressed state of mind himself, said, on January 16, 1938: “That the last two years don’t count, they are already water over the dam.” There are indications, that FDR didn’t expect to win his bid for re-election, and in his memos there are hints that he actually thought that a conservative would win the White House, cut spending and do what he had promised but could not deliver on through the whole ordeal called the New Deal. He certainly knew that the New Deal was a failure, I have to wonder why so many people like yourself still believe what he, himself did not?
Morgenthau reported this, he knew, just like FDR that they had dug a hole, a big hole and FDR had put a third term out of his mind. The only idea left to him was to spend, and he knew that was doing nothing. They were grasping at straws and trying to come up with some new program, some new spending plan, but it came as a surprise when he found that tax revenues were falling, by almost a billion dollars due to the curtailment of actual productive private enterprise. FDR revealed plans to increase the deficit by $3.5 Billion dollars by that time. Still, FDR knew that he was facing a crisis, he could do nothing but try spending, but even he knew that such spending was not a cure. because such spending had done nothing to actually ease the effects of the depression. Perhaps the most embarrassing thing about the New Deal is that FDR had denounced Hoover for the very things that he himself was doing and yet, FDR outspent, out taxed Hoover by several miles. FDR had lamb-basted Hoover for his failure to balance the budget and yet, FDR did exactly what he cursed Hoover for, only worse. The New Deal was little more than a dog and pony show, it placated the people not with actual results but with a needed and desired confidence that, as FDR noted, the country wanted to know that someone cared.
He spent and gave away tax money, and it seemed easy for him to bestow that money on special classes in the population, all in exchange for their votes and support. He was quick to use anything that would bring about a sensation, some novelty, anything that would bring about a theatrical result. Many of the programs were in direct conflict with other programs he instituted, but that was of no consequence. The quackery of the New Deal was immense and it exploited many of the most disparate in the country. By 1938, FDR knew that he was exactly where he started when he was first elected, he had accomplished nothing. He had no choice but to do what he had denounced Hoover for doing and that was to start spending big bucks on the military. In fact, it was in 1938, that FDR slipped and let out a very revealing thought when he said “The danger of war with Japan will naturally cause an increase in our armaments programs, which cannot be avoided” now that was several years prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, but it appears that the racket of war was already on the planning table.
There is much more to the story than we are accustom to reading in the history books, so much has been omitted, so much vital information and yet, it is that very information that is needed to adequately understand that period. Of course, many people choose to neglect that history for the comfort of that which they have grown accustom to through the years of reading the accepted history.
Blah, blah, hearsay, anecdote, "obviously ineffective," FDR-hating, blah, yawn.
The people must have hated him, after he gave all their money away, exploited them, built the recovery on their backs, and destroyed their future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating#Graphs
Good reading: http://www.truth-out.org/how-did-happen/1320278111
"cited" by the way.
I've seen you posting relentlessly and citing Cole & Ohanian pretty much exclusively in your ideological opposition to FDR. They are, indeed, revisionist (econo)historians - also ideological - who distorted the facts as they saw fit. I have read looselyhuman's links, and the case was most definitely made.
Oh, I never said there were correct in everything in their assessment, only that they had peaked out of their macroeconomic shells. I only cite them because of the connection they have had with the established economic thought that usually supports those who side of the New Deal. That being the Journal of Political Economy.
I don't follow Cole or Ohanian, in fact, I lean more toward the A.E. view of economics.
Then how come the victorious capitalists trying to reduce America to a third-world country?
A capitalist society would not have bailed out banks or offered money to other large corporations to prevent them from failing. That's a form of socialism. It's telling that self-proclaimed "capitalists" are ok with tax money going to aid big businesses with billions of dollars but have a problem with government aiding ordinary citizens in the same way. It's not that those "capitalists" are anti-socialism, they're just subscribing to another kind of socialism
Pure Anarcho-Capitalism has never once been implemented in the history of the world. The closest (but still not pure capitalism) we came was the early Industrial Revolution pre-1900. The outcome of that was horrendous: toxic foodstuffs, child labor, hazardous working conditions, insane work hours, and monopolistic business practices. It was the reforms of the progressives in the early 1900s that gave us the quality of life that we enjoy today, and, I might add, also ushered in the economic boom of the early 1900s.
Our economic system, like most modern economic systems, is not capitalist. It's a mixed economic system. And it does a mixed job of bringing us prosperity. When we look at quality of life, prosperity and happiness around the world, the US doesn't even rank in the top 10. The number one country (reported by Forbes Magazine) is Denmark. It's the happiest country on earth, and it's also a mix of Free Market Capitalism and Welfare State Socialism. It has the lowest unemployment rate in the western world at only 6.1%, has an entrepreneurial spirit that comes close to that of the US, and one of the lowest disparities of wealth in the world. Despite the low amount of disparity, 83% of Danes believe working hard gets you ahead, which is almost as high as it is in the United States.
There are clearly better ways to do things than trying to argue pure anarcho-capitalism vs pure state socialism. That's a false dichotomy that has no basis in reality. Rather, finding the right mix to increase the prosperity of the US should be our goal. Everyone wants some degree of government interference. I don't think anyone wants to go back to the 19th century before we had meat inspectors. Similarly, everyone wants some amount of economic freedom and mobility. It's figuring out where, and how, to best draw those lines that we need to do as a nation, and this crazy presenting the problem as we have to either choose total economic anarchy or an absolute command economy is helping no one.
People need to stop being divisive and start looking for real solutions. There is a workable middle ground, but everyone needs to be willing to move off their talking points first.
We absolutely have a quasi-socialist economy and have since the Administration of FDR, but prior to that it was the Administration of Lincoln that began Mercantilism in this country, setting the seed bed for both the FED and the IRS, as well as a total fiat currency.
It is not a simple undertaking that the OWS has engaged itself in. The answer to the current problems in our world (not just the USA) are not as simple as saying, "end capitalism". And capitalism may not be culprit.
However, reason and instinct point to greed as the only culprit. So, the entire debate turns on one question...do you believe that greed is good?
Please don't use Gordon Gekko as a point of reference to defend your position. Or, the quasi cerebral defense that greed perpetuated some of the greatest innovations or discoveries ...think Jonas Salk.
@Republicae Look at the poverty, crime, wars, and corruption around you, it is, in fact, the free-market, capitalist system that produces these problems. Don't just pick out the good stuff and leave the bad, like the so called "Real-Christians" do.
Really? Hmmm..and I thought it was humans that produced those things. A free market cannot produce such things, only people and government. A free market is non-political, it has no mind to create, only people do. The market is nothing but a mechanism of economic exchange, voluntary in its action and execution.
Capitalism has had a part in helping create the type of prosperity seen in the western societies. Where's the credit to the past 500 years science that built the foundation this economy operates on. Human history seems vast only from the short span we exist during, history is a guide, and an inconsistent on at that.
I look at my IPAD and I don't see Steve Jobs, I see James Clerk Maxwell, inspired by Michael Faraday's insight into the workings of electromagnetism. Without either of those insights, nothing that works on those principles would exist today. Science will continue with or without capitalism, because the drive towards science, more specifically, to understanding, is innate. Capitalism doesn't provide me with jack shit, the earth and it's resources do, other humans working together do. You can call it whatever you want, but it's only an imaginary tool overlaid on our little reality.
Capitalism has worked for now, but are you proposing it'll never fade out of existence? Is there no other solution for human societies, possibly ones that don't promote excess consumption and reckless growth. You'd be ignorant to claim there's no other option, and that looking is a big waste of our time. With that attitude, you'd be right - why try to improve our situation when capitalism is oh-so wonderful. I'd also like to add - we live the way we do because of the genius of others. Alexander Fleming didn't ask for compensation for his discovery because he didn't see that he should profit from it; he revealed a secret held within reality, it wasn't his to sell. If we continue down the route of "personal ownership" where should it stop. Who's going to own the moon? What about mars? Humanity with either outgrow capitalism, or it'll probably cease to exist.
For me personally, I don't derive much hope from capitalist intent. It's always more, more and more. More is fine when your horizons broaden appropriately, but they haven't; we're still stuck on this planet, and this planet has a mass, thus finite limits. Where's the money in exploring space currently? The value in setting up a mars colony is non-existent, but the real value, the inspirational value is huge. What hope does humanity have to achieve when everything has a freaking dollar sign attached to it; what's the moon really worth?
Well said.
Until we stop comodifying anything and everything, we are doomed as a society.
We've never said "no capitalism" as a movement. We've never said "no banks" either. We accept that the movement of capital as facilitated by financial institutions is what propels this economy forward. However, if you look more closely at this statement, it essentially means that the financial services industry has an incredible amount of power. If it chokes up and shuts down, so do we. If financial institutions decide to go on a bender, their high carries us for a while, but then their hangover equals severe recession to depression for us. The only other institution or series thereof with that kind of power is the government, and the government is a) at least in theory directly accountable to the people who have to live with the consequences of its mistakes and b) subject to constant calls for its diminution, castration, and in some cases its elimination since 2008. What I'm trying to understand is why an industry so powerful should be subject to so little regulation and oversight. And quite honestly, I can't think of a satisfactory answer.
However, I am far more of a moderate who would like to see regulated capitalism and a second New Deal to pick up the pieces of this crisis. I don't have much patience for anarchism, communism, etc, and I don't necessarily believe those are a good idea. I do, however, feel that if this keeps gaining momentum and the GAs start pushing an actual platform we have a shot at implementing some of these changes. I also believe that this movement is held together by tenuous enough bonds that if regulated capitalism is achieved and they try to go farther the coalition will shatter and nothing more will happen. I'm on the bandwagon because I believe that if they succeed they'll be able to implement moderate change but will collapse before they can do anything more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Economic_environment
Damn charts and tables and their stupid facts. :)
Unemployment declined every year from 1932-1940 except 1938 when FDR listened to the GOP and cut back on the New Deal. GDP grew every year except 1938 as well. The rest of the world was in free fall. There was no trade or commerce and without government spending it would have been total collapse. Things took off even more during the Keynesian economic stimulus known as WWII.
Really, well, from what I’ve seen on various YouTube Videos, there is a large contingent of protesters calling for the end of capitalism and the implementation of socialism or a quasi-socialistic economy, which we have suffered under a mixed economy since the New Deal anyway, that’s part of the problem. The New Deal made The Great Depression much longer and much deeper than it would have otherwise been had FDR not implemented his programs, many of which caused even more distress than the affects that the depression had in the first place. Even the mainstream Keyneisan macroeconomists have now changed their minds about the actual effects of the New Deal, back in 2004, in the Journal of Political Economics there was an article that presented the case that the New Deal policies caused far more problems then they ever solved, in fact, it was concluded that had the New Deal not been implemented, the country would have quickly recovered instead of suffering a decade of economic dislocation. Yet, there are those today who persistently retain the opinion that the New Deal helped.
The following is one quote from that article:
"Real gross domestic product per adult, which was 39 percent below trend at the trough of the Depression in 1933, remained 27 percent below trend in 1939," the authors write. And "Similarly, private hours worked were 27 percent below trend in 1933 and remained 21 percent below trend in 1939."
The U.S. Census Bureau statistics reported as late as 1939, that the unemployment rate, despite all the programs introduced by FDR’s New Deal, remained at 17.2%. The cause, the “economic starvation” caused by the policies of FDR. The theory was, as it is today, that a monetary shock would produce the desired affects on the economy, but they didn’t then just as the Obama stimulus did not, there is good reason for that and that is because money is drained from the productive economy and placed into the control of political misfits that don’t have a clue about economic mechanics or economic productive principles. The claim then, as it is today, is that such monetary shocks would produce a strong recovery, but it didn’t then and it can’t now. Virtually every single policiy that was implemented by FDR made things far worse than they would have otherwise been had those policies not been instituted.
If you look, in fact, at the years 1933 and 1934, you will see that most of the polices implemented during those years actually resulted in producing what can be called corporate cartels, many of which we still must deal with today and, in fact, many were involved in the onslaught of the Panic of 2008... you thank the New Deal for that! The fact is, and it is verifiable, that the New Deal policies of cartelization of the structure of the economy during those periods played a major role in producing such a weak economy, there was during that period a 60% difference between actual economic output and the output trend. The whole New Deal system was a disaster from start to finish and basically laid the foundation for much of what we must now content with dealing with Corporatism in this country, FDR made it all possible.
Now, with the Trillions of fiat paper dollars being "printed" by the FED, what we can expect is either a drastic increase in inflation, or even a hyper-inflationary depression. Each dollar will drastically lose its economic potency, as it does it will become much more difficult for people to make ends meet. Thanks Bush, Obama and all those in the FED for the crimes they have committed against this country and its People.
A large collection of words, vagaries and historical revisionism. Mis-identification of cause to effect.
Please, tell me exactly where the revisionism is and the mis-identification of cause to effect. Please, provide details, but don't simply spew out a sentence and expect it to be taken with any veracity. Do you also think that the FED had nothing to do with creating the problems that caused The Great Depression? I guess you didn't know that Ben Bernanke finally admitted that it was indeed the monetary policies of the FED that caused The Great Depression, but of course, you won't see that either in your history books. If you don't delved into history, and I'm sure by your comments that you haven't, then you are at the mercy of a history that has major holes in it.
The New Deal prolonged the depression. Inaccurate, revised by the CATO institute and those of its' ilk. Bernanke was referring to the lack of interventionism that extended the depression. It was more the lack of regulation of private banks, and allowing over leveraged risky investments than the Fed. We had the Fed through the 50s through the 70s, rather prosperous times for most. Why didn't everything go to hell in that period? Maybe there are other things to look at.
"It could be worse" is an argument for idiots. When the top 400 people are hoarding as much wealth as 150,000,000 other Americans combined, that is called feudalism. They are exporting our prosperity to China while you cry out Mine Mine Mine while clutching to the scraps they let you have. Fool.
If they were hoarding that money you wouldn't have a pot to piss in...talk about being a fool, you obviously don't understand the role of capital or just how you are able to buy what you buy. What are you wearing, what are you eating, how on earth did you get the computer you are using to write such tripe???
The problem is not capitalism, but government sponsored patronages that allow certain well-connected corporations to take advantage of that patronage. You are protesting the wrong issues. All one need do is listen to some of the protesters to see that the vast majority of them, obviously including you, don't have a clue about how economic movement works.
So 400 people having as much wealth as 150,000,000 Americans combined is not hoarding? They are somehow sharing it with me? I work for a living, fuckface. What do you do?
Of course, it is not surprising that you must stoop to name-calling, that appears to be all that you have available to you.
If they were actually hoarding their money there would be no market, their money would not be active capital, in other words it would not be working through the economy, gaining profit for them while providing economic benefits from you and I. If the 1% pulled every bit of their money from the system and actually began to hoard it then you would see an instant effect on the economy, on your ability to live the life that you now live. NO, they are not hoarding, look up the word hoarding. There is a substantial difference between hoarding and the use of capital. Just because they happen to be brighter, more driven, more successful does not mean that you, who obviously lack some of those traits, have the right to decide how their money is used...do you? Remember, it is not your money to share, unless you have the ability to innovate and bring a product or an idea to market. You have no claim on anyone else's money but the money you produce. You benefit daily from every active dollar placed into the economic machine, yes, even by the 1%, which you don't understand, and that is obvious, for if you did then you would not make such statements as you do.
First, meritocracy is a myth. Until you can say that a child born in poverty has the exact same chance to reach the 1% as a child already born in the 1%, you can not make the assumption that anyone is "brighter" or "more driven." Some surely are, others surely are not.
Second, "hoarding" is not the same as "not buying things" or "not investing." If I already have more money than I can ever spend and still persist in profit-taking with little regard for moral or ethical cost, that constitutes hoarding. It may be a subjective definition, and one that is inherently pejorative, but the phenomenon exists. "Hoarding" and "use of capital" are not related to one another. One can "use capital" to "hoard." One can "use capital" for other purposes. One can "not use capital" to "hoard." One can "not use capital" for reasons other than hoarding. There's no correlation.
Third, despite what most people think, the driving philosophy for Occupy is not the extremist anti-capitalist straw man you're attacking. So, unfortunately, your logical fallacies weren't even used for a productive purpose. You accuse others for not understanding Capitalism, and yet you don't understand the grievances of Occupy.
Last paragraph...true, but the voices you dismiss are becoming far more prominent.
As far as the grievances of OWS, I have heard various grievances, most of those that I have heard tend to be from people who obviously have either little knowledge of what they are talking about, or who have such a wacked agenda that it is laughable. There are understandable frustrations, to be sure, but there doesn’t seem to be a voice in the movement that can actually delineate the issues in a very constructive manner. I have read various “manifestos”, most of which are, again, completely ill-informed and skewed toward a political agenda that is most definitely counter-productive toward their own grievances, at least from a standpoint of solutions. So, attempting to understand OWS becomes very difficult since there doesn’t seem to be a cohesive message or voice to such a message.
As far as opportunity goes, if you read my writings, on this and other post, you will quickly find one of my complaints is that this economic system has been co-oped by a system of government patronages, by the mercantilism that mixes government and corporate power in a Congress that tends to legislate favors, protections and subsidies that stifle actual competition, decreases opportunity for everyone but those who enjoy their well-connected political patrons and which, as a result, increases the disparity of wealth and income in this country. That is a problem, not of Capitalism, but of Corporatism, which is another word for Fascism, which privatizes profits and socializes risks. That is the system that must be destroyed and there must be a restoration of actual free-market principles in this country.
Free market ideology is what enables crony capitalism.
The Free Market is the antithesis of crony capitalism and in no way can it enable crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is not the creation of the market, but the creation of government, as it always has been. Crony capitalism is not possible without government intervention into the market therefore, it is an impossibility for the Free Market to enable crony capitalism since the Free Market, by its very nature does not involve government intervention, but voluntary cooperation between individuals and the businesses of individuals or stockholders.
Total nonsense. out.
Do you realize that 40% of the world's population survives on less than $2 per day? To those 40%, YOU are the wealthy. That 40% represents several BILLION people. The top 1% of wage earners WORLDWIDE are those making $50K and above. Billions don't have adequate clothing. How many shirts do you own? Are you hoarding shirts?
We live in America, idiot. I am supposed to be guilty of owning clothing while billionaires hoard all the world's wealth? Your argument is ludicrous and I suspect an intentional distraction from reality.
We live in America so you have no empathy for the rest of mankind? Your argument paint an ugly picture. I'm not trying to distract. I'm trying to point out that the term poor is very relative. Go to Haiti and tell those people how poor you are.
Can you guess how many billionaires there are in America? There are less than 800 billionaires worldwide. The top 1% of wage earners in the US make $500K and above.
Everywhere is freaks and hairies Dykes and faries, tell me where is sanity Tax the rich, feed the poor Till there are no rich no more
I'd love to change the world But, I don't know what to do
You have no argument.
You must have been at the top of your debate team. Get a job.
I have a job, idiot. What do you do for a living.
Well...I'm not the one complaining about " clutching to the scraps they let you have." I've supported a family of four for over 20 years and have put two young adults through school. I donate to charities regularly. We'll all be fine without any help from the 1% or OWS. Calling people idiot and fuckface does not help your argument.
I want to know what you do because I bet it will show you're full of shit. You came here to make accusations, back it up.
Why are you avoiding the question? What do you do?
I'll tell you what. You give me a valid reason why my occupation is relevant, and you tell me your occupation, then I'll tell you what I do for a living. But, I do not want to provide any of my personal information to this board.
Billionaires don't hoard all the world's wealth? Show me where they do that? What would you do to the Billionaires? Do you know just how much money Billionaires give into charitable organizations, do you know how much they invest into various enterprises that may help further advancement in medicine and healthcare or any number of other things that are beneficial? I mean surely you must know these things since your stance is that they are hoarding the world's wealth.
through off-shoring, down sizing, restructuring, creative destruction and mergers and acquisition the one percent destroy the lives of their fellow humans, the least they could do is give a percent of their ill gotten gains to charity. if they didn't, they would be less than human. Besides scientists and engineers create, billionaires expropriate.
Billionaires should not exist because all of the people in all of the various industries that did all of the work that made them billionaires should have been paid more money for their work.
So much talk about BILLIONAIRES. How many do you think there are? They are not the 1%. More like the 0.0005%.
400 Americans are hoarding as much wealth as 150 MILLION other Americans combined. I'd say that's a big problem.
I don't believe that wealth distribution is the problem. Government waste and corruption is the cause of the financial mess that the world is now experiencing. Change needs to come from legislation, not from redistribution of wealth.
Check this out:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
Best few minutes you could spend.
Interesting and thought provoking, BUT,,,I have several criticisms...1) I don't believe that a cause and effect is proven by the data. 2) The first chart used data from 23 countries, another chart showed 21 countries, later 13 countries were graphed and still later only 11 countries appeared on the graph. 3) When looking at the Percent with Mental Illness numbers, I was shocked to see the US at well over 25%. I looked up that statistic at the National Institute of Mental Health to find the number is actually 20%. Still a staggering number, but very different than the data displayed in the video. One last point...I wasn't suggesting that income inequality was a non-issue. If unemployment were down and the housing market hadn't crashed, we may see different number in that category, My point is that the financial issues (perhaps including income inequality) begin with government. Greed is the drug that business is addicted to and the politicians are pushing that drug for their own personal gains.
Explain how government waste and corruption is the cause? What a ridiculous statement.
Yeah, that really explains how the government was the cause you fucking loon. Business gets a pass because of course they are going to be greedy unscrupulous criminal scum. Keep on bending over they love fucking your stupid ass.
I'll simplify because I really don't want to debate someone that refuses to consider an alternate point of view. As our government wastes revenue it becomes indebted. It requires additional revenue in the form of taxes. Taxation drives away investment and business growth. This drives away industry and jobs. A corrupt government shows favoritism to certain business leaders and industries. This thwarts competition and skews the natural market. When Bill Clinton decided to go too far with CRA he created an industry that was bound to fail. Businesses will take advantage of opportunities provided. They exist to make money not to look out for the well being of citizens (they will look out for the well being of stockholders). If you don't believe that government is wasteful and corrupt, I'm not sure how to get through to you.
What dumb logic you use. Did anyone force those people to work for those companies? Did they agree to work for the wages they received? Did anyone force anyone to buy the products made in those companies? What did you buy this week from big corporations, did you buy gas, did you buy food, did you buy clothes, do you have a computer, how about software for that computer?
Please, don't disclose the density of your thinking processes again, it is not pleasant.
I don't expect you to understand. What do you do for a living?
What do you do for a living? That is probably the better question and probably more revealing. So, why don't you expect me to understand? Again, where is your logic? Describe exactly what you are attempting to convey.
Well put on the philanthropic vantage point. Always overlooked until a good disater, say, Hati?
[Removed]
Pish....
This is what the masses seem unable to grasp:
If we replace our current leaders with human beings, they will sell out just as far as the current bunch. Our leaders weren't born sold out. Wall Street executives weren't born evil. They were born human. With a natural instinct to gather and store for survival. A natural instinct to care for family and community.
When modern society was formed, we began to sell out our natural instincts. Survival turned into survival with a little more elbow room. Then survival with a little more elbow room and a nice view. Then survival with a little more elbow room, a nice view, and something pretty to hang around our neck.
Fast forward a few thousand years. With the industrial revolution came mechanized transportation, air conditioning, and television.
We had become somewhat spoiled. Somewhat motivated. Still relatively down to Earth. Still modest enough to appreciate one another, care for one another, and work towards a common goal.
Along the way, the potential for increased personal wealth became more and more intoxicating. Now, just about everyone wants to be rich. They want it so badly, they are willing to sell out basic morality to attain it. They WILL sell out basic morality if given the opportunity.
How can I be so sure? That's easy. Human nature plus years of corrupt influence plus opportunity.
Mother Nature did not plan for modern society. She did not plan on such corrupt influence. She never intended for any of us to seek or attain extreme personal wealth. We simply can not process the concept without being corrupted by it. Without compromising basic morality.
Extreme wealth is the single greatest corrupt influence of modern society. With every 'zero' on the paycheck, our basic instincts to care for family and community are compromised.
Those of you who still aren't convinced, consider this:
If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, and take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, would you do it?
If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, OR take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, which would you choose?
Not only is the greatest concentration of wealth in world history the single greatest underlying cause of economic instability. The very concept of extreme personal wealth is the most corrupt influence in the history of mankind.
I speak the ugly truth.
There will be no reform on Wall Street.
There will be no recovery for the vast majority.
There will be no government "of the people" and "for the people".
Not one of us will live to see it.
Force Change, Boycott Capitalism until we have full government resignation and a new online voting system with verification so we can rebuild our country and eventually our world.
We know what the problem is, let us fix it and move forward together.
When you look at a republican or democrat, congress or FDA official, Judges and Justice Department, you see criminals.
Our corruption dates back decades to when those, who in trying to preserve slavery, had to find new ways to preserve it and so created a scientific and advanced form of slavery.
Only two components were required -- the illusion of freedom & choice and the taking away of the freedom to live off the land.
How else would you get a person to submit themselves to mind numbing or degrading work unless you oppress them into it.
Our current system is rooted in corruption and every attempt in preserving it involves manipulating human thought and turning people against one another.
In America the population has been transformed into two major voting groups but they only have one choice.
They had been distracted up until now with television and American culture which prospered through the oppression of other nations.
Americans allowed themselves to be fooled into using their military and economic dominance to seize resources of other nations and create expanding markets for American profiteers.
Now that technology, competition and conscience have evolved Americans are realizing that our current system of government is damaging and unsustainable.
Our government officials have allowed private profits and personal benefits to influence decisions that affect the health and well-being of people all over the planet, not just in America... how much longer will we allow them to rule over us??
Occupy Washington and demand that all government officials resign their posts.
We will setup new online elections with a verification system that will allow us to see our votes after we cast them, put our new officials in office and work toward rebuilding our country and our world.
Pass this message along to any and everyone, we already occupy the world, unite.
Occupy Washington, Boycott Capitalism, Force Change
http://wesower.org
If Gerald Celente is not willing to admit the greatest concentration of wealth in world history as the primary underlying cause, then he is a coward.
He has mentioned it in passing once or twice but only in a casual way. A quick footnote. I believe that he has done so only to earn a hint of credibility. I believe that Celente is reluctant (like all filthy rich public figures) to acknowledge the incredible harm done by the greatest concentration of wealth in world history.
I'm aware of his record. It's better than most so called 'experts' but not by much. At least not with regard to economics.
Did he go on record at any time predicting the greatest concentration of wealth in world history?
Did he predict that the richest one percent would get even richer during the Great Recession?
Did he predict that the lower 99 percent as a group would see a significant drop in net worth and income during the same time frame?
Hell no he didn't. How could he have failed to do so even with all of his knowledge? That's easy.
Gerald Celente is a high ranking member of the one percent club. Another filthy rich pig. That's how.
MIAMI (CBSMiami.com) – Florida is touting the new jobs it created Friday after a positive unemployment report. But based on numbers from all W-2’s filed in the country, the wages simply aren’t keeping up.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion.
In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.
Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Two examples of rotten disgusting immoral behavior involving five very well known filthy disgusting rich multi-hundred-millionaire fake humanitarian celebrity pigs.
The ugly truth about the housing market, Countrywide, predatory lending, and the endorsements of Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil. Ch'Ching!
The first subprime loans were issued in 1994. It was a gimmick to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, sell more homes at higher profits, foreclose on those who could not pay when the ARM rates readjusted, take their homes leaving them with nothing to show for their payments, resell the homes at a higher profit and so on. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes and artificially inflate the market. Those loans were incredibly profitable for well over a decade before the house of cards finally collapsed. In the meantime, bankers got richer along with the richest one percent who made off with higher dividends. It was a sham.
The biggest player in the game was Countrywide. Endorsed by Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil. If you have their shows from '04' to '06' on tape, watch them again. All three were paid millions specifically to endorse Countrywide by name. The biggest subprime player in the game. They issued more ARM loans than anyone else. Foreclosing on those who could not make their monthy payments when the rates suddenly went through the roof. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, foreclose, and resell for a higher profit. The sham worked like a charm for 12 years before the house of cards finally fell in.
At this approximate time, the worthless paper was sold to unsuspecting investors.
Oprah, Ellen, and Dr Phil were paid millions for their endorsements. Ch'Ching!
They have always had their ignorant love-sick fans eating right out of their hands. This alone is irresponsible. But to stand there and tell their ignorant love-sick fans to run out and get a loan from the biggest rat in the industry. That's just sick.
These three pigs are not naive little uninformed twits like Paris Hilton. They are educated, informed, and extremely savvy mass media juggernauts. They knew damn well about predatory lending. It was a common phrase by then. Still, they stood there and endorsed the biggest subprime rat in the industry. They did so with a big fat FAKE smile on their face. Unfortunately, public figures are not legally required to be straight with their ignorant fans.
But they God damn well should be.
Bono is no humanitarian. In fact, he made millions from a shady deal with Live Nation in which other investors were made to subsidize his multi-million dollar stock options regardless of market value. The stock tanked, Bono unloaded, and those 'other' investors did in fact take giant losses in part, so the filthy disgusting rich multi-hundred-millionaire 'humanitarian' Bono would not have to.
Ch'Ching!
Just another rotten immoral disgusting trick perpetrated in the name of greed.
Madonna secured a similar deal with Live Nation.
I've said it many times and I will say it many more.
There is no such thing as a multi-millionaire humanitarian.
The most profitable industries in the world (energy, healthcare, finance) have been given billions in government handouts and tax breaks. Meanwhile, they keep raising charges causing hardship for millions. With all those massive handouts, tax breaks, and obscene charges, profits rise to record high levels. Millions in bonuses are paid to the executives. With record high profits, record high dividends are paid. 40% of all dividends in the United States are paid to the richest one percent. All of this causes a gradual concentration of wealth and income. This results in a net loss for the lower majority who find it more and more difficult to cover the record high cost of living, which again, is directly proportional to record high profits for the rich. As more and more people struggle to make ends meet, more and more financial aid becomes necessary. Most of which goes right back to the health care industry through Medicare, Medicaid, and a very expensive prescription drug plan. This increases government spending. This has been happening for 30 years now. During the same time, tax rates have been lowered drastically for the richest one percent. Especially those who profit from investments. These people pay only 15 percent on capital gains income. As even more wealth concentrates, the lower majority find it more difficult to sustain there share of the consumer driven economy. Demand drops as more and more people go broke. Layoffs results. Unemployment rises. This results in less revenue and more government debt.
Massive subsidies and tax breaks for Wall Street, massive tax breaks for the super rich, heavy concentration of wealth, record high charges along with record high profits and record high cost of living, more hardship for the lower majority, more government spending in the form of financial aid to compensate, more concentration of wealth, less demand, layoffs and unemployment. All of this results in slower economy and less tax revenue. At the same time more and more financial aid becomes necessary. It's a horrible downward cycle which gradually pushes the national debt higher and higher. The other big factors are the wars in the Middle East.
This post is not intended to excuse those who sit on the couch collecting welfare, make no attempt to find work, or squease out kids they can't provide for.
Here is a list of the top ten companies that not only paid no taxes but got huge corporate welfare from we the people.
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
God damn it. You die hard winner take all bloodthirsty capitalists and filthy rich pigs absolutely refuse to understand the following: First, that record high charges in health care, energy, and finance also mean record high profits and record high dividends. 40% of which are paid to the richest one percent. This causes more hardship and more concentration of wealth. At the same time, more financial aid in the form of welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid becomes necessary. Especially with those record high charges and profits. As even more wealth is concentrated, the lower majority go into debt and lose their relative buying power. This results in less demand, layoffs, and higher unemployment. This results in even more legitimate need for financial aid, a slower economy, less revenue, and higher national debt. It's a downward cycle tied directly to the relentless concentration of wealth.
I'm not making excuses for those who sit on the couch, make no attempt to find work, and sponge off the government. I'm not calling for a welfare state. But God damn it. You die hard conservatives and filthy rich pigs need to stop being such cowards, open your god damn eyes, and finally admit that there is a downside as more and more wealth becomes concentrated.
The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all United States wealth. The lower 99 percent are sharing the rest. This is true even after you account for all taxes, charity, and financial aid.
Mark my words: this equation will get worse.
THERE IS A DOWNSIDE AS YOU GET RICHER AND RICHER!
A word for my critics: I'm no expert but I'm no fool. I predicted this socio-economic crisis in writing 6 years ago. I'm aware of all the conservative and liberal talking points. Of course, I hate politicians. But I don't hate liberals or conservatives. I agree with both on some issues. For example: I agree that we need an adequate safety net for those in need. Not for those who sit on the couch and watch TV.I agree with tax cuts for small business. But not for Wall Street and not for those making $500,000 and up. A heavy concentration of wealth is what got us here. A gradual and partial redistribution of wealth is vital.
I don't want socialism, communism, or marxism. I want modest capitalism. A reasonable scale of income opportunity for all those willing and able to work. An adequate safety net for those in need.
A word for the rich: I have received quite a bit of negative feedback from you one percent club pigs. I must be doing something right. After all, you took time away from your money bath just for me. You might want to check your ass crack for soggy bills. In the meantime, let me just say this for the record:
You can't intimidate me. You can't embarrass me. You can't make me feel uneducated, unintelligent, or otherwise insignificant. You can't confuse me. You can't divert my attention. You can't exhaust me and you sure as hell can't break my will. I know I'm getting to you because you're here with another lame psychological trick. You're here in an attempt to shut me up. It won't work. I've had it with all of you.
I won't break any laws. I would never discredit the cause with a criminal act. But I'm telling you right now that I'm virtually impossible to stop. It's a big world and I have a lot to say. If you want to break my will, you're going to have to break my neck first.
If you pull a stunt like that, a lot of people will know what happened to me and why.
Now get out of my face. I have work to do.
We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of domestic wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic political manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitation workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent of Americans already own 40% of all US wealth. Still, they want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority. The rich have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively. The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated around 44% of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.
Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some United States wealth was gradually transfered back to the lower majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth. Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own 40 percent of all US wealth. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.
The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible. No redistribution. No recovery.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
Capitalism is a result of colonialism, so of course, we are better off since we are living off the slavery of all the colonies, and don't forget these exploited countries are all capitalist societies. Take for example Haiti, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Central America etc., what happened to Capitalism in these countries? That the same compliments Gotti (Mafia) got from his family and friends. Malcolm X, called it house slaves and field slaves, he house slaves would protect and kill for his master, the field slaves would fight for freedom. Some are so delusional, they don't realize this is also about them.
Well said. We have also seen a huge increase in the lifespan of humans thanks to better and more choices of food, better healthcare options, improved sanitation, more productive and safer labor tools, and cleaner air because we are not burning as much coal and wood. Capitalism has made our lives much better.
When live on others innovations and discoveries, not profits. Money kills, not builds.
Anyone ever read Kropotkin?
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html
He isnt really an anrchist....it was Mutual Aid..as written by Kropotkin and the love of Mother Russia (GonosticSophi/Gaia/ Mother Earth) that was at the heart of peoples years long struggle that we now call the " Russian Revolution"
It was co-opted by Marx and then co-opted by Lenin/Trotsky Financial backers...
Anyone here agree?
This is great. I am not an Anarchists..more at Direct Democracy guy....but hey, all this discussion.....
If the whole thing does not turn into a riot or national collapse, just for sparkin up the dialogue, .....thanks Kalle. my country needed it.
Saving the economy is as easy as 1-2-3 or as in 1) Changing our Accounting Practices so that employees become assets. 2) Changing the Constitution so that corporate profit should never exceeds 5-10% of a company’s “human assets’ salaries and benefits. (This has nothing to do with socialism or communism; it’s simply a way to ensure that, as profits rise, employees get a share). 3) Giving the Demand (households) Power by giving it time, information and resources and developing a true well-paid Service Economy. I call this Caronomics to balance the male-inclined Economics.
What economic system has been responsible for the greatest rise in living standards for the greatest number of people?
Chinese socialism.
Actually, that is not true, in the history of the world, you will find that it has been the American Free-Market Capitalist System that has brought more people out of poverty into a higher standard of living than any other. If you look proportionally at the Chinese economy it is substantially less than what the Capitalist economy has done in this country throughout the last two centuries. If the truth be known, the rise of the Chinese economy has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism, which as we all know was an abject failure in China as it was in the former USSR, in Cuba and in North Korea. The fact is that the Chinese have adopted many free market principles that have allowed them to increase their productivity and market economy. In fact, many of the leaders of China are now quoting Adam Smith more than Mao. Additionally, the rise in the economy of China, is limited to a very small segment of the population, most of the rural peoples of China remain in levels of poverty that would be hard for Americans to fathom.
I'm not a socialist, I just thought that the juxtaposition of capitalism and socialism in China has done a decent job of gaming the capitalist system, and as long as it is doing so, capitalism is a disadvantage. Also, as you mention Adam Smith, do you realize that his idea of capitalism had 2 main pillars, which were the morality of man (which no longer exists thanks to the profit motive), and the assumption that one will invest in his own country above all others (which has been shattered by globalization). The capitalism of Adam Smith is no longer relevant in today's world. Boom
I have several friends in China, some of whom are well connected. I have recommended that they read Mises, Hazlitt, Menger and Rothbard rather than Adam Smith.....LOL
They've already got the message. Most of Hayek's fans there are staunch supporters of the Communist party. http://bloodandtreasure.typepad.com/blood_treasure/2006/11/hayekian_dictat.html
"For the poor you always have with you" John 12:8
free-market capitalism (the worst system - except for all the others;-) is a pyramid scheme that prospers as long as there are inexhaustible resources that can be cheaply harvested and converted into wealth. it can't survive without the many near the bottom, who actually produce the wealth and are remunerated for some of it, nor can it survive without the few near the top who risk and organize capital and take profit from the labor of those the bottom. Another aspect is, in a reasonably free society, anyone at the bottom (say, a young Barack Obama or Herman Cain) can see the life at the top and shoot for it.
The current crisis is either because we are approaching an end of apparently inexhaustible resources and the best the top can do is cannibalize on the rest (I think this is what OWS is more or less about), or those at the bottom have had their labor cost rise to a point where it's cheaper for those at the top to outsource.
Practically everyone claiming bottom 99% membership in this country are in something like the top 10% around the world, so this is, roughly speaking, a protest about the 90-99.9% against the top 0.1%. Sounds petulant viewed in that broader light, doesn't it?
In the end it's all about expectations. I'm fifty-five and likely to have my next job loss turn into involuntary retirement; I expect it so I won't complain about it. There is talk about the growing ratio of wealth at the top to wealth at the bottom, but what is a rational basis for determining the "right" ratio to expect? There is talk about health care as a right, but what is the basis for that expectation (it is certainly not a constitutionally enumerated right)?
N.B. don't get me wrong: I know it is my obligation to care for others' health, but from where does the government get the power to enforce, "at the point of a sword," and implement that obligation on and for everyone?
Just ramblings.
capitalism destroys nations because it breeds (and will always will breed) GREED. it has no regard for human dignity nor will it ever will because its main concern is profitability.
Capitalism does not breed greed, human nature breeds greed, even in the poorest of nations, even socialist systems, they suffer from the same human characteristics of greed as do those under a capitalist system
Name a society that doesn't run off of greed?
North Korea? Kim Jo Il doesn't run off of greed for power?
What about Hugo Chavez? He doesn't run off of greed for oil money?
What about King Saud from Saudi Arabia? The family doesn't run off of greed?
Greed isn't a societal thing, greed is just apart of human nature.
Murder, violence, rape and other atrocities are part of human history too, but you don't see our government promoting those. Do you? Just because we are capable of antisocial behavior society, i.e. Gov't, should not condone it.
First, in your comparison, greed cannot be defined. Murder, rape, and violence can be.
Define greed, is it me taking too much? Me taking too much of what? Define greed then we can go from there.
You just don't try hard enough. Did Reagan not insinuate that Greed is Good, I don't believe he thought the others were too.
So did gordon gekko, whats your point.
Again, define greed. What is greed. Is it not all shades of gray? Rape is black and white, you were either raped or not.
So define greed.
if i take your ability to make a living in order to pad my profits, i am greedy. If I use smear campaigns to discredit other technology, such as the electric car, I am greedy. If i deny global warming, a concept most kings of industry refuse to knowledge, I am greedy. If i choose to capitalize off a housing bubble, instead of educating the public, I am greedy. Besides, it's not my job to define what is bad for the common good. I am not a protector of the constitution.
good job you just parroted the talking points of the left.
You are as vague as can be.
Lets take the housing bubble. Are you greedy if you take out a mortgage knowing you can't pay the mortgage if the rates increase by 50 basis points?
Are you greedy if you are the CEO of Catepillar who has plants all over the world?
Whats padding your profits. Is that making more than a 5% profit margin? 10%? Industry average? Comp average?
You obviously haven't thought out your position. Like I said greed is all shades of gray and is mainly prespective.
I suggest you read a little more before spouting dumb ideas. Or at least think.
Greed is good. Depends on how you frame greed.
There Is a War Going On For Your Mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP5yA3RwzOk
Yeah Fuck the Capitalist pigs! I wanna see them bu.... wait a sec I just sold a Dcam Eagle on Ebay
Can you define Socialism?
First of all, we must understand that the word Socialism, like Capitalism are nothing but abstract nouns that have no power within themselves to actually describe the forces behind each economic system. Whereas Capitalism is a far more spontaneous system than Socialism, which, after all, is highly centrally planned, usually by bureaucrats in The State machine. In central planning, it is the planners who take the place of market spontaneity and forces, interpreting what is virtually beyond interpretation due to the untold billions of second by second decisions by people acting in their own interest and needs on a daily basis. Socialism is a system devoid of actual economic calculation, making economic signaling impossible to understand or be used to make economic decisions, supply and demand are therefore, always, without exception distortions of the reality and the system usually ends up with the over supply of unwanted goods or the shortage of those that are wanted. That's why most Socialist countries suffer from all types of shortages, lack of innovation and a general economic malaise leading to an overall increase of lower standards of living.
Of course, the term Socialism also depends on what type it is, for you have the Socialism of the NAZI Party, then you have Marxist, Leninist, Trotskytes, Fabians and a vast array of Socialist ideologies that range from dictatorial to democratic. Thus, the definition will depend on exactly what we are talking about when we say Socialism. Today this country is much closer to Fascism, a form of Socialism then it is to Capitalism and it has been more Fascist for around 7 decades. Fascism, can be identified with collusion between the Political power and Corporate power, but that is a form of Socialism, not Capitalism even though it has some traits of a Capitalist economy, the main thrust of this economy is Fascist in nature and execution.
I can, a scientifically based form of governance where the unquantifiable human nature is omitted from the hypothesis. This omission is why socialism miserably fails in every corner of the planet earth.
it's funny how people will show the self-interestedness of the species to degrade the idea of socialism but they over look it when they speak about unregulated capitalism.
I am no supporter of capitalism, I understand the term Human resource, and the term implies Humans have been turned into chattel property.
Human chattel property.....sounds exactly like a Socialist society to me...all the worker bees laboring for The State.
or a capitalist/industrialist society like what we have now in the good ole' us of a. That's what happens when people are dumbed down so far they do not know the difference between things like common law and law merchant/admiralty law
Again, we do not have a free-market capitalist society today, we have had, since at least the 30s, a mercantilist system, a system of Corporatism, all brought about by this government, not by the market, not by capitalism. Again, what we have today is the antithesis of capitalism, it is a form of fascism.
well,,, your on to something. We began to loose the common law back in the 30's and it was gradually replaced by the law merchant system. the law merchant system is one in which debt can be traded like a commodity. in common law debt is not allowed to exist. you may have heard "debt=sin" that's a bit theological but it makes the point. Common law disappeared fully in 1964 when federal reserve notes became nonredeemable. We all should endeavor to push law merchant back to the sea where it belongs.
My bad, i thought the "unquantifiable human nature" line was a turn of phrase for being self interested. Once I have my coffee, I'll be more astute.
Welcome to the fight my friend
The trouble is that we have not seen unregulated capitalism in this country for well over 70 years. What we have had is actually a form of Socialism in the form of a mixed economy where the government has, through its abuse of power, created a very cozy relationship with the corporate world...it is commonly known as Fascism, which is, as I said, a form of Socialism. Remember the NAZI party was the National Socialist Party. Indeed, many members of the Administration of FDR, including FDR himself admired Fascism and modeled the New Deal after many of the Fascist reforms in Italy and Germany. So, you and I have never lived under a system of unregulated capitalism, in fact, most of the regulations passed by this government are done so in conjunction with the lobbying efforts of the corporations themselves, which provides protections and exemptions that would not normally be found in capitalism.
You still maintain you're not simply about smearing FDR after this? The man that defeated nazism? The president plotted against by wealthy fascist sympathizers here at home (The Business Plot)? A fascist?
The NRA may have had some inspiration from Mussolini's programs, but it stands apart from the rest of the New Deal and most New Dealers were glad to see it go. Laissez faire capitalism had failed on a planetary scale (familiar), and at the time, there seemed to be two main choices rising up to replace it. We (and the Brits) charted a different path, and truly saved your precious capitalism - with uniquely American ideas. Capitalists should be forever grateful to FDR. The people who lived in his time certainly were.
Oh, FDR never thought much at all about Hitler, but he was a fan of Mussolini. FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'"Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini's program to modernize Italy: "It's the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious" (Tugwell). FDR didn't save capitalism anymore than George Bush did.
Factually, many if not most of the policies of the New Deal were fascist in concept and execution. I can't help it if it ruffles the feathers of the FDR worshipers.
So in all this revisionist nonsense about FDR siding with the Axis Powers during WWII, who do you feel best represents your views??
Seriously, just give me a straightforward answer.
We all know that Milton Friedman (among other revisionists) directly supported several Fascists in Latin America and always opposed Democracy. So which country during WWII (or ever?) has policies which you advocate the most??
i always get a kick out of watching the State of the Union speech and seeing the mural behind the speaker and the vice president. those are fascist decals, sticks bound together with rope. It goes back to the Romans.
That's not what Socialism is. Give me a real answer.
Commonly, the definition of Socialism is the transfer of the means of production or the control over that production from private ownership to that of organized society and although it is a commonly held view that it is the workers, the laborers who own the means of production under Socialism, the fact is that the “ownership” or control is always placed into the hands of the State, or centralized government. In a purely Socialist society, it is the State that owns and directs the material factors of production, including the work-force. Private ownership is limited or restricted, if not eliminated completely through the collective. The rights of the individual therefore, take a second seat to the rights of the collective. Everything, must eventually become compulsory in order to maintain the system. The State becomes the determinate factor in the lives of the individual, in the level of the living standards of the people. Since all production under a Socialist society demands the cooperation of all the factors of production, it is the unionization, under the control of the State, of all land, capital and labor.
As such, under a purely Socialistic society, your right to exist is assigned to you, and your needs are based on the collective needs of society; now while that sounds all altruistic, the truth is that the collective needs are not determined by the public subjected to life in the Socialist State, but by the State itself. In other words, some politburo member or bureaucrat or group determine the level of need and the level of sustenance doled out to the individuals in the collective. Incentive is eliminated through the process, at least for the individuals in the actual collective labor hive, but of course, history bears out the fact that rarely are those in leadership roles under a Socialist Society share in the same level of living standards as those in the hive.
Here is the thoughts of the famous Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw, though not a definition, it does cut to the heart of the matter about the way most of the leadership Socialist Elite view Socialism:
"Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well."
George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470
Of course, no only advocating Socialism would ever tell such a truth today, the fact is that the ultimate goal of Socialism is a workers serfdom. However, due to the lack of economic calculation the levels of the so-called non-poverty of Socialism would be far below any standard of living now present in this country.
Of course, it is important to remember what Kruschev said: ‘You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.’
I'm serious, socialism was designed by scientists, buy they can not figure human nature so it got left out of the design. look at china supposedly communist but in fact is the largest capitalist country in the world. there are more Ferraris and Lamborghinis sold here than any other place on earth. All the while the non producing communist party leaders get fat on the labor of the workers. those leaders eat the best (cleanest) foods in the country. Human nature of corrupt power is in full effect in china.
Well Socialism meant to be a government from the bottom-up, rather than the top-down. What we in America view as Socialism is only one form, and it's not the form that the rest of the world understands as Socialism. Socialism doesn't mean getting handouts and equality, but it means everyone has partial ownership in their company and no government should intervene on your decisions. We can't even define this in America.
Our understanding of Socialism in America is backwards; we have been influenced by propaganda. The rest of the world defines Socialism differently. Communism is NOT Socialism. Facism is NOT Socialism. The U.S.S.R was not Socialist, but was more properly defined as State Capitalist. Yes, I said it. The Soviet Union was Capitalist.
There have been many ideas of goverment and they have never been based on science. If they were, goverments wouldn't fail and we would have a world government looking out for the people. Please show me any research that quantifies government into a sound, mathematical formula.
when government is run by machines maybe you can quantify it. but as long as governments are run by Humans it will never be quantifiable. Like all socialist countries they began on the good premise of being for the workers, but are always taken over by the leaders and made into leader serving entities, and the workers lacking basic rights like free speech and gun ownership are left by the wayside. Take this quote from the preamble of the Chinese constitution: China gradually achieved its transition from a New-Democratic to a socialist society. The socialist transformation of the private ownership of the means of production has been completed, the system of exploitation of man by man abolished and the socialist system established http://www.legislation.gov.hk/eng/home.htm# Socialism never works because its left to Humans to administer. Anyone that has ever been to china can attest that exploitation of man by man is thriving in China today.
Capitalism is the voluntary and free exchange within the market. Socialism is where the State either owns or controls business enterprise. Fascism, according to those who knew the term, like Mussolini, Hitler and Franco, did, in fact, speak of it as a form of Socialism, but they saw it as a much higher form than the Socialistic ideas that emanated from Marx and Engles, or the later distortions of Marxism through Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, ect.
There was, in fact, nothing at all capitalist about the former USSR, it was a centrally planned economy which is the antithesis of capitalism. Communism, based upon yet another form of Socialistic ideal, was, in fact, socialistic. It had all the characteristics of socialism, including the fatal flaw of socialism which is the complete absence of economic calculation. The character of economic calculation within an economy defines its ability to function as capitalistic, without it there can be no capitalism.
I agree with what you desribed as Socialism, but that is only one polarized definition. You are decribing State Socialism and it's that form of government that gave all Socialist definitions a bad name. What I described earlier is a completely different type of government all together. What bothers me is that many people will hear Socialism and come to the conclusion that it's evil. Some forms of Socialism might not be ideal, but there are many levels of Socialism and they all shouldn't be grouped into State Socialism.
Technology. Technology. Technology.
Plays a pretty big part.... I can't believe no one has mentioned that yet.
Also, where will humans be employed in... oh, 50 years when AI and Robotics take over most of the work we used to do? Obviously there will be technicians, engineers and so on. At some point however AI will advance to the cognitive levels of humans or even further. Look at evolution and how long it took until evil simple nervous system came into existence. Yet, we in 100 years have created robots capable of thinking on lower levels, less intelligent than a cockroach, maybe... but that's pretty smart!
But I digress, eventually human labor will be obsolete - this combined with fusion energy and advances in space travel, our reality will probably be a far cry from where we're at now. You can't possibly employ billions of individuals when most of the work is automated. Or maybe you can, I don't know... I guess we'll find out.
I think that David Harvey did a good job at discussing the questions of Capitalism and living standards here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_XqTXsGBL8
Republican corporation party
Well, both the Republicans and the Democrats benefit from this Corporatism, this system of government patronages that allows for the well-connected in both the political and corporate worlds to get to the feeding trough first. Neither Party gives a shit about the People, they care about power and they play the game with the American People every four years, making promises to get elected, but then they whore themselves out to the highest bidder and spread their legs to the best looking deal.
well spoking!
Yeah... I love all these economically ignorant people that think socialism is more successful. Not only is that not true, it is very apparent that socialism cannot even function over a long term! Do some research people. Its no coincidence the smartest political minds to ever exist created our country the way they did. LETS GET BACK TO THAT!
Technology and Capitalism are responsible for the success of the American economy. Mismanagement by government is responsible for our current difficulties.
Continued:
Each of us benefit, far more than we realize, from the generation of wealth, and thus the profit, of those companies, even the ones that are extremely profitable, such as Apple, which by the way, is more profitable as a percentage than Exxon, Exxon garners about a 5% profit while Apple enjoys a whopping 21% profit. But, because of certain public and political prognosticators, Exxon is portrayed as the Demon Big Oil, yet Apple is the Darling. Why? It certainly doesn’t make sense in terms of the comparison of profits per dollar invested by those industries, but it is easier and far more politically expedient to demonize Exxon than it is Apple, such hypocrisy is rampant.
We benefit, from all of these corporations, even those that are used as political whipping boys by those with certain agendas. Because of all these corporations, even under this corrupted system of mercantilism, we still benefit from products and services being abundantly available and at a much lower price than would otherwise be possible without those corporations, even Exxon. You have the ability to buy groceries, a very wide variety of groceries in fact, due to the fact that the oil companies produce oil and gasoline, due to the automobile companies producing vehicles, due to every single provider of goods and services, you and I benefit every single day. You and I are the beneficiaries of capitalism as the means of production, everyone consuming any product available today is, in reality, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, the real beneficiaries of the profitability of capitalism.
So, if you don’t like capitalism, STOP BUYING, STOP CONSUMING, STOP ENJOYING those products that you have in your home, in your refrigerator, in your pantry, stop using those products, stop wearing those products, stop enjoying all those products you now enjoy. If you are against capitalism, against profit, against wealth and the ability to create wealth then just stop, look around your life and get rid of everything that you think you don’t need to make your life a non-capitalist life. Take off all your clothes, your jewelry, toss your cell phone, your computer, your tv and all the gadgets you own, throw away all that food in your house, in fact, in order to live your life without capitalism you would need to live without a house, unless you built it yourself. Think about what many of you are really asking when you say you are against profitable businesses, against those who have built wealth, created businesses, produced products and services...in fact, just look at how OWS was organized, without capitalism do you really think that Facebook would exist, or that the computer you are using to write on this forum would exist?
Please, realize that the problems we face are not, in fact, due to capitalism or even wealth, but due to a government that has, through its policies, created a system that provides a system of mercantilism from the Federal Reserve to those who are politically connected to the government’s patronage system. Therein is the real problem, this movement should be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue instead of Wallstreet, which is only the symptom of the problem and not the source.
It is, after all, despite all the rhetoric from various corners, the wealth of capitalists who makes it all possible, whether they are investing in companies, in stocks, in various ventures, It is that wealth that is the source of everything you and I buy and enjoy and need and want. The supply of all production of all products and services in this country is the result of the wealth of capitalists, whether that wealth is huge or small, it is the risk that capitalists take with their money that makes it possible for you and I to buy those products and services. The demand for all labor in this country is due to the wealth generated through capitalism, in other words, if you have a job you can and should thank a capitalist.
While I agree with much (not all) of what you're saying. I don't think that this particular kind of rhetoric stands up to scrutiny. The Eastern Bloc protestors against communism back in the late 80s/early 90s were wearing clothes made by the communist state, eating food grown by the communist state, living in houses built by the communist state, using electricity generated by the communist state ... this did not render their protest invalid when they said they wanted something better than communism. Did you want to lecture them in the same way and tell 'em: "If you don't like communism, take off all your clothes"?
I agree. Capitalism is not the problem and indeed a type of mercantalism is in place. The issue is the responsiveness of our government to the needs of the majority of the people. Government is supposed to represent its people and corporations, no matter what the Supreme Justice says, are not people. Keep the money where the money belongs: in a capitalist system. But get it out of politics where the interests of citizens, be they rich or poor, should be representative. We need a constitutional amendment fully funding all campaigns. We need to force the "system" to listen to ideas and not marketing messages. Capitalism = Good. Money in politics = Bad. There is no other way to do this than a constitutional amendment, the first amendment as it relates to campaigns should not be warped by the power of money and powerful modern media tactics.
One thing that help tremendously would be to remove the both Senators and Representatives from the roles as federal employees and make them instead, employees of their respective States. The States then would determine both pay raises and benefits, there would be much more control over Congress from the States and the People, as well as, placing much more responsibility and accountability on Congress. It would effectively eliminate a great deal of political lobbying since the incentive would be greatly reduced.
The 17th Amendment should also be repealed, it nationalized the Senate, making those in the Senate more beholding to the electoral pressures of campaigning and the possible corruption that can accompany such campaigning. Prior to the 17th Amendment, the individual State Legislatures were responsible for selecting their Senators, while there was some corruption, it could not possibly be as corrupt as it is now.
Any one that blames capatalism is making a mistake and looks foolish.. That said some aspects of socialism are sound and the only way forward..
Problem is the one man who has a plan to bring about the most radical soscialist act like nationalising the FED...His name is banned on this forum and he is labeled a right winger or a tea bagger
Absolutley insane,
WAKE UP..VOTE Ron Lawl