Forum Post: The Greatest FAIL of OccupyWallStreet
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 1:23 p.m. EST by gekko
(75)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Many of you are now preaching ideologies akin to socialism and other variations of collectivism- the very ideologies and practices that have created our neo-fascist-crony-capitalist-corporatocracy in the first place. Unless we re-establish our old American principles; limited government, sound money, liberty, and truly free markets, we will be no different than any other socialist or communist regime that normally emerges after times of turmoil like this. For those of you who place the blame on capitalism and free markets and other things that 'arise' from these principles, I recommend clicking the link and reading an article that argues that we haven't had uncorrupted or government-central controlled free markets or capitalism since the inception of the Fed... Worth the read for anyone still on the fence about it
Those aren't old American principles. They're new ones, promoted by the selective rewriting and reading of history. The capitalist libertarian principles promoted as "original were, as they are now, shared by only a portion of the population. We're sold the concept that our Constitution is infallible and was wholly supported in the name of liberty, however many, including Jefferson, wondered what right one generation of a popularly sovereign nation had to instruct the next how to govern themselves.
And your railing against Socialism is little more than a throwback argument to the 20th century, where Wilsonian communications staff and George Creel used divisive ideology and intense public relations efforts to squash all non orthodox capitalist political efforts so as to shore up support for Americas involvement in WW1.
If you doubt me, research Ethan Allen, Thomas Young, The Green Mountain Boys or North Carolina Regulators. All revolutionary founding patriots who were actually fighting back and demonstrating before the Adams, Franklin, Jefferson or Washington were even THINKING about rebellion. And I can promise you this much. Were they alive today, they'd not be out there on the line for the free market.
The greatest strength of the OWS movement is that has resisted attaching itself entirely to issues only supported by a portion of its participants. Running on an anti-fed message would be as divisive to the movement as climate change would. And while all arguments have a time and place and are important to be held, the inability for us to have a government that is focused on our ideas and our desires for this nation, rather than those of the corporate elite, has relegated these conversations to cafes and the internet.
And THAT is what this thing is about. Ending the corruptive influences of of a corporate machine run amok under the guises of the infallibility of capitalism. Our politicians, who dare to call themselves leaders, are bought and sold before we've even had a chance to vote. Its time that ends.
if you read the article you would have learned that we haven't had truly free markets at least since the inception of the fed. They have rigged our credit markets and have co-opted our government and turned our system into a crony-statist-fascist-capitalist state, and that is not true capitalism or truly free markets. while i appreciate your name dropping, although i'm sure most of those people were not rebelling for statism and fascism, but for freedom, you are missing the point: The "anti Fed" movement is only divisive to people who don't understand it, such as yourself, because they can't see how they destroy free markets and co-opt the government and wall st who then rig the system for the "1%" and have all the rabble screaming in bewilderment for higher taxes and more regulations and government intervention. i advise you to first take your head out of your butt, and then learn a little more about the two institutions that are responsible for 95% or more of the debt, out of control spending, over taxation, over-regulation, social isolation, unrest, inequality, unbalance and many more bad things we have today: the Fed and the federal government. you can start by reading the article you've criticized before even reading, or watch zeitgeist or listen to people that are actually alive like Bob Chapman, Gerald Celente, Peter Schiff, Ron Paul to name a few
Great points, thanks!
Thank you for this well thought out and very strong argument. If I could repost it a million times - I would.
well that sounds like a government problem that needs to be solved not capitalism.. no one forces the government to accept bribes, they make that decision on their own. a real government would be stronger than the 'corruptive influences' because it should be looking out for the majority. don't victimize them because they can't say no to bribery
Most people here think capitalism is a form of government and democracy is an economic system. They want to replace capitalism with democracy.
in a way the terms are synonymous
Actually, they're pretty much required to accept the "bribes" when they enter given races. The private industrial and political forces who perpetuate the big ticket private money elections and campaigns pretty much shape the game to where if one has any aspirations to attain office, they first need to glad hand the big donors and sell their legislative agenda out piece by piece. So no, simply crying "capitalism" and letting markets do as they please is not the solution.
Yes. If we do not retake power over governance from the plutocrats, not much can be achieved
Agreed on all fronts. And here's what James Madison said:
We are free today substantially but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A republic cannot stand upon bayonets, and when that day comes, when the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions.
So, selective reading of the "founding fathers" is what's being done here by the original poster.
wow, sounds like the game monopoly! :) seriously: interesting quote, thanks for sharing.
Yours is the extremist position, not ours. You'll find the overwhelming majority of this movement would like to return to the sound policies of the pre-Reagan era. You'd like to return to the 19th century - and actually go farther back into feudalism. Which is more extreme?
wow you are a confused little guy.. did you read the article?
Why bother? Your far-right propaganda is spelled out plainly in the intro.
Good lord, do some research.
As even Lawrence O'Donnell showed us a few weeks back there is socialism in every system. The more capitalism in a system the more poverty, social problems, crime. Socialism is about being social. Capitalism is about only caring about your own selfish bottom line, which leads to all the debased sins man has invented to twist the faith of our republic.
capitalism has been corrupted. we have a form fascism and statism now with some capitalist characteristics. socialism is about taking from the producers and giving to non producers- as a result you get a more non productive and large class of poor people who are useless, ie many socialist countries. capitalism provides more incentive to produce, and when there is more production that is good for everyone because people are getting richer and more people have jobs. why do you think america was the most prosperous nation in the world for many years?? The corruption of our system has been more rampant this past decade since the expansion of our government. We also have a Federal Reserve that has ruined free markets and intervened more than ever today. that isn't capitalism, sir, and if anything, our system has been closer to socialism these past few years than anything else. ie obama care, 1 trillion dollar a year toward welfare and human resources, very high tax rates and excessive regulation, government intervening in our lives ruining and constitutional liberties, etc. wouldn't you agree that we pretty much are socialists already? and if so, how would more socialist type policies help our situation?
Viva the communist revolution!!
please no
The issues are bigger than on country my friend although i understand your patriotism having been one in the past.
With all the countries kicking off surley this should enlighten people to the fact we have out grown the requierment for money (or should that be oil? They are the same after all...)
I don't think "socialism" or "collectivism" has ruined the middle class, I think it was corporate greed.
as much as i can understand it, i worried somewhat about this as well. some seem to espouse extreme views, but others more sound, reasonable approaches of reform. I honestly do not feel educated enough to clarify much but will try to learn more and hope that clear and educated minds continue to weigh-in on this to soundly mold the direction of this movement. i'm more for reform. and as much as i have suffered in this sink or swim economy...i prefer to keep fighting with hope than be in a socialist system that does not motivate (especially since many with less of a work ethic take advantage of the system). but my liberal views (and impoverished childhood) make me see the need for some sorts of safety nets. i am hopeful suitable proposals/solutions will prevail. (keep in mind many others watching are not as patient...we need to explain it so they join in the process, help form the ideas, demands solutions, etc.) and so the others who we need to also support the cause will have the information they want and need.
check out http://www.moneytrendsresearch.com/
it has a wealth of good reads and videos to help you learn more
Socialism = weed. we need weedalisim. whoa i just made that up. I'm so bored and high at the protests. This forum is so important that even stoners like myself can haev a voice in it! weeeeeeeeed is so awesome.
legalizing weed would definitely cut the deficit!! stick that in your blunt and smoke it
yeah man! Word up homey! SMoek weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed
We understand why you are frighted. Change is unnerving. This must be very difficult for you. You and the others who are posting negative comments on this forum are feeling threatened and uncertain. We understand. These are anxious times.Try to consider this from the perspective of those on "the other side."
Keep in mind that there is no "other side": there is one country, under God.
Join us.
Who's blaming capitalism -- not us? We're a Focused Direct Democracy. As such, many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.
Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. In this, sequence is key.
Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.
The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.
Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.
So please JOIN the 2nd link so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for, at exactly the right time, by an e-mail from that group, in support of the above the bank-focused platform. If so, then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the above strategy as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your current Occupation & Generation.
I didn't get it at first but now I do. It's time for a better system. It's not about demands. The people running the country do not represent the true needs of the people. They don't even understand them. I'm a successful business person. I am fortunate that I can pay my bills and taxes and that I am able to employ a handful of people in this country. And I still feel like I'm part of the 99% because I can't effect humanitarian change in this country the way I would like.
I AGREE! But shouldnt we demand a better system? yikes, even saying it, i realize how reluctant the country would be to consider a NEW system. it might be easier to reform. something BIG, would be necessary for such a drastic change to occur. Yes we can!???
If you are tired of all these Randian trolls in this site, please try: http://www.themultitude.org/
We have real admins and ban trolls, so they don't hijack discussions. Just to let know whats going on, the tripe that OWS is a socialist movement is the line that the agent provocateurs of the 1% are pushing. For all concerned who care, there is no ism, those are theories in the dustbin of history that propagandists dust up to fool and divide people. What is important is that 99% unite and decide what is good for themselves in DEMOCRATIC way together, without interference from the 1% and their agents who will try everything in the book and then some more to prevent it from happening.
Gekko -
First, interesting name when you are arguing FOR free markets. Or was the link between Gordon Gekko and your name completely serendipitous?
Free Market concepts are wonderful in theory but ridiculous in reality. If we had a truly "free market" then we would re-allow pre-schoolers into the workforce among many other foolish and archaic concepts.
Do we so easily forget the 70s and the many ecological violations that resulted in the forming of the EPA? Just look up the story of Love Canal. It's atrocious.
The free market works until you bring in the human greed element. Once you bring that in - the notion of doing the right thing is completely thrown out the window. Doing the right thing will be an actuarial equation based on potential damage cost and potential profits.
With that said, I agree with limited federal government and stronger local government. Sound, asset-backed money. I am against the Fed.
I just don't agree that an unfettered free market is necessarily a positive.
you sound like you're talking about a free market with absolutely no regulation, and that's not what i am saying.. i want free markets regulated by a government that does what it was intended to do-- protect property rights, enforce the rule of law and contracts. this would prevent any kind of child labor or destruction of the land and other 'archaic' stuff like that. for example, if their is a factory polluting your land, then it is your responsibility to get the authorities involved- and the mess would be fixed far sooner than any federal programs would.. just look at the EPA's many examples of inefficiency. I do agree with some gov programs that just insure the enforcement of the rights that i mentioned and other basic freedoms, but that is all they need to be doing. you should read the article dood
Ah. Well in that we probably agree.
I'll take a read tomorrow when I'm more awake.
lol ok
We do not want to change our govt type or economic system ( well except to take the crony part out of it). That would probably definitely get bloody for one. For two, it would be heavily resisted which would lead to a civil war. And for three , the system we got now is fine when it works properly.
Thus we want to fix our current system. Three things need to happen for this to take place.
1) We need to separate politicians from corporate and interest group influence. The politicians are to represent the people of their district and ONLY the people of their district.
2) We need to make politicians represent only their peoples interest. With the internet and its technology this is not hard.
3) We need to be able to keep an eye , as constituents , on EVERYTHING our politicians do in office. This can be done through an agency that is elected directly by the people that report directly to the people and has all the necessary security clearance. This would allow us to make sure the representatives represent the interest of the people in their district...all the people.
Laugh of the day: "the system we got now is fine when it works properly." Yes if you read the article, you're 3 demands are covered by the Constitution's original responsibility of government: protecting property rights, contracts, and rule of law and other basic freedoms. they no longer do this and that is the entire problem along with a federal reserve system that destroys free markets. both need to be fixed and yes, the system that we USED to have would work fine until the government no longer does their job and becomes servants of the Fed and corporations that give them money, instead of the people. A good start to fixing the government is ending the Fed, and having a sound money again. the next is to change the lobbying system to insure the government cannot accept bribes. please read the article before you respond
No fixing the fed is part of the problem within the system. The system has to be fixed first. Otherwise its like fixing broken parts out of a machine instead of fixing the machine so it doesnt make broken parts.
http://occupier777.angelfire.com/
Read 2,4,5. Changes LIKE that are the ones we need to focus on first.
you don't think the controllers of the money supply with a debt-money system is problem? you don't thinks the Fed financing unlimited amounts of government debt to let them spend trillions on bogus wars and welfare programs that cause staggering inflation is a problem? get fuckin real dude
No its not the problem that needs to be addressed first. If you give them a demand without actually having a way with them sticking to their promises. In 4 years or 8 years or 12 years they might decide to go back on that demand. They will probably wait till the recession is over and everyone is back slaving away at their job and to busy trying to get by and then just undo it if they dont like it.
People will not be fired up like they are now, so their might be a small protest or two but it will go mostly ignored. They have been doing this for decades. What unites people now is that it is so bad for everyone. When the unemployment rate its 5% (real unemployment) no one is going to care anymore.
This is a one shot deal you are not going to get a movement like this again in your lifetime on this scale. It is a global movement. That is a HUGE advantage because it gives them no where to run. It makes them feel like the whole world is out to get them and they need that kind of fear.
This is not a protest it is a global economic revolution. It will probably be the most historic thing to happen in your lifetime.
yea as long as the protests make it to D.C and all the fed banks and somehow accomplish something
I don't think "Capitalism is the Problem"! It's the selfish, warring hierarchies!
(see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/127/2 )
Do you agree? Disagree? Either way, you should let everyone know.
Brent Allsop
Thanks for the link BrentAllsop, very functional post just for that. I've joined.
I agree, and have an understanding that I think address the issue. The hierarchies have made an agreement long ago, the US constitution. There was massive strength in that. Time has eroded that strength as society changed.
We need an Article V convention to evolve that agreement between hierarchies.
Congress is very afraid of an Article V.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."
Our first right in our contract is Article V, the right to have congress convene delgates when 2/3 of the states have applied for an amendatory convention.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Lots of facts here about Article V. http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html
Oh, go Rand yourself.
The real problem is that, by in large, Americans need to make decision if they are true Capitalist or come out of the closet about being socialist. We have been operation under a system of credit since 1913, but always had manufacturing to rely upon. Now, have become a nation of consumerist that have amassed an amazing debt.
If we are to become true capitalist, then it has to be illegal for government impose any regulation, extra tax cut or brakes, on it, but it can't also ease a companies plight by giving it bailouts and allowing loopholes that let them avoid or reducing their taxes and no bailouts! Not one penny of tax payer money goes to any private company via government. Also, there should be no Social Security, SSI, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Snap (Food Stamps), VA, or state funded hospitals. The department of Education, Energy, the Fed, The UN, IRS, any funds from Fanny, Freddie or Sally are also cut.
Truth is, it can't happen. Eventhough most right wingers cry about people wanting from the taxpayer, I have yet to have meet one single "conservative" that hasn't or don't plan on using a government prgram. Secretly, most of americans are socialist, but aren't educated enought to know that every system (even Communisim) uses capitalism (See China) and that being a socialist doesn't mean the end of democracy.
Not sure why you hate capitalism. It led to that fancy iPhone you are using to tweet your communist demands.
Someone doesn't know what Communism is. Nor who makes the iPhone.
iPhone-made possible by Microsoft.
Liberty is too much work and personal responsibility.
What's wrong with being a puppet whose sole existence is dependent on Government? After all, government is always the most powerful corporation.
lolz
How about before the Fed? Are you telling me everything was hunky dory during the Robber baron era? Get real.
no not saying that, and it is arguable that we've ever had a free market or true capitalism.. but we've had periods where we were closer.. and we were definitely more prosperous
That depends on which side of the time clock you were on, or whether you were African-American, Native-American, or living in a tenement. If it wasn't for the unions, the working people would have been living in squalor, (where they are currently headed back to), because it was their agitation that made TR's "progressive" policies possible. He made a modest move to stave off dissent. There was no "golden age", that is a fallacy. Or, it was only for slaveholders or rich CEOs, who bilked the working people for all they were worth.
no one gets rich working for someone else in ANY system. dude. don't blame corporations for producing things that you buy everyday for 'bilking' the working people. if you are tired of getting bilked by your company, maybe you should buy some of their stock.. or start your own.. that's what makes the concepts of free markets and capitalism so great- you have the choice to do your own thing and be your own boss. sorry if youve been a worker your whole life but thats your fault.. no one forced you to..
Organizing is the way to go because the great majority will not be business owners. The few do not have the right to exploit the many just because they throw an investment together. Get real.
To regain Power u have to take Guns and go down THE STREEETT
OCCUPYWALLST FAAILLL with Non-Violence things
Troll. What makes you think us liberals don't love liberty? In fact, we love liberty so much we want our government to answer to us the people not banks.
then go to D.C and get the fuck out of wall st
Wall St. is now where the power is. The protesters have chosen exactly the right location.
they were given that power by the fed, gov, and phony fractional reserve system. don't kid yourself
Yes, but who were the lobbyist. I think a lot of politicians are just as overwhelmed with the complexities of their laws as most Americans are.
and that's exactly my point. limited governments that just protect our basic constitutional freedoms, property rights, rule of law and contracts doesn't need to be fuckin complicated. and don't be mad at the lobbyists for their influence, be upset at the gov for accepting bribes, making secret deals and other shenanigans with the lobbyists to make money for themselves. Just have a look at congress's overall portfolio returns that beat everybody on wall st... that isn't a coincidence. the only difference between our government and a banana republic government is that our's dresses nicer and puts on a better charade of freedom and other myths.. we need to downsize them and give them their original responsibilities and keep them there. then end the fed. vote for Ron Paul if you agree
Senate republicans commit treason by killing 2 million jobs yesterday
The democrats have the majority and could have passed without republican support...fact
check Senate procedures for the rule of 60
And that is also why we are at wall street and not in Washington. Those votes were already send to DC (by vote), and see what happens. This is a bipartisan issue.
You are so clouded by partisanship that you cannot see the political gamesmanship that the democrats are playing.
pass the bill and 2 million jobs appear - democrats vote for it- every motherfucking republican voted against it
Almost 1 trillion was spnt on the previous bill with the end result of some jobs being created, mostly within government, at a cost of over 200k per job. This is not a proper use of taxpayer money. Putting more people on the government payroll only increases the size of government and I am pretty sure that this group want to decrease government. President Obama stated when asked about the previous bill "I guess these jobs were not as shovel ready as I thought". 2 million jobs is an arbitrary number with no data to back it up.
and 0 jobs is not arbitrary at all, it really means Republicans choose to create 0 jobs.
This is not how jobs are created, not through legislation where the people, you and I, are the ones paying the bill.
Even the Commerce Department wanted that bill to pass. Commerce Department the voice of coroporate america. That says a lot! Its coporation themselves who wanted that bill (for whatever their own interest are - i.e. free riding). In other words, not even corporations want the free market system, at this point of the game.
How are we to square this laizzez fair circle.
Are we now only listening to theory and academic utopians (the likes of nozick) who are talking in the most abstract and ideal-typical ways?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0owuc2cTgMs
You have you many contradictions. How can you be against corporate America yet support something that you claim corporations want? My concern is that 500 billion dollars is not money we have, you cannot spend to prosperity. If that is the way to go, then we as citizens should max out our credit, buy what we want and let out children pay the bill, it just does not make sense. Why not get the EPA out of the way and let the energy companies explore, drill, and refine energy so that production costs for goods will decrease. Why not tell the NLRB to get out of the way of Boeing and allow them to open their plant in South Carolina. What about the heavy handedness of the govt with regards to Gibson Guitars (I prefer them over Fender)? 2600 jobs are at risk because of the Lacy act, but the dirty little not -so-secret is that if Gibson were to FINISH the product overseas (India) and ship it in, there would be no issue? There are currently too many regulations on the books that are inhibiting companies from starting or expanding, remove them and the jobs will be created in the private sector. I did not want this jobs bill because it is a farce designed to create more division within the country. 2 weeks ago Harry Reid blocked the bill from being voted on so that they could go a recess. If it were so important, why did he stonewall it? There are better ways to get people employed, but putting them on the government roll is not one of them.
I said nothing to the likes of 'aim against corporate America'.
but thank you for emphasizing my point. I'm was merely pointing out the contradiction of the utilitarian ideologist. "Free market, but just not now."
As the Commerce Department* said, "gives us this bill!"
*as a reminder; Commerce Department is big business.
Remember, this is not what i am saying, its what they are pushing themselves.
Your post stated that senate republicans committed treason by not signing this bill, which indicates that you are in favor of it, correct? Yet at the same time you support OWS which is against business (as usual). I am just saying that you cannot be for both, you really do have to chose sides on this one. Also, please explain why you feel that not signing a spending bill is treason, then contrast it to the president signing an assassination order for the death of a US citizen or the Attorney General selling guns to drug cartels that result in the death of US citizens is not.
again, you're misconstruing OWS. You are wrong to say OWS is against the total dismantling of all corporate structures, absolute. That's a rhetorical move i simply will not let you get away with.
I know you will give me an anecdote of some anarchist who wants just that. I beg you; don't!
Ok, that is fair and reasonable. What about the treason remark?
Every form of government and economic system is a form of collective agreement. And we can collectively create something new.
I recommend you check out Charles Reich's "The new property: an ecological view". He illustrates how even if those values were desirable, they simply aren't feasible in a modern developed economy. I hope you check it out, it would open a lot of doors for you.
We do have capitalism and capitalists, but they have been failing miserably. In a free market system, the capitalist (the person with the money) has one responsibility: To keep the capital flowing. Our good capitalists have decided to sit on it, put it in off-shore banks and keep it, or to send it to more lucrative investments in other countries. We have rewarded them by giving them tax breaks. They have taken the funds from the tax breaks and, predictably, are sitting on it, putting it in off-shore banks, keeping it, investing it in other countries, and lobbying for more tax breaks.
Ummm, those "old American principles" were based on a slave society. Facism, socialism and communism are the "new" bogeymen, but long before Hitler or Stalin, at our birth, Americans committed widespread genocide, theft of land and had an economy built on the imprisonment and torture of MILLIONS of people for HUNDREDS of years. That's just historical fact right?
I believe in capitalism, but pure capitalism without oversight and regulation can be tyrannical and destructive to human freedoms as well.
Also, there is no such thing as a "truly free market" without government regulation. Free markets depend on people being informed and being on equal footing with companies to make purchases. Without government intervention, this balance is impossible to maintain.
well if you read the article it doesn't say that we should deregulate entirely. the fed government was meant to protect property rights, rule of law, and to enforce contracts.. thats about all. 100% completely unregulated free market at this point is a terrible idea but the fed government needs to be downsized substantially. and yeah sure, america was built on slavery and other good stuff like that but let's look from the constitution forward. we know slavery is a bad idea even though we have many forms of paid slavery today but the point is there would be more production if the federal gov was more limited and the federal reserve was abolished. can you argue with that?
Read it, but first paragraph tells you that there's an agenda:
"As the Wall St. protestors grow in numbers, their message and demands become increasingly obscure and disconcerted. As the Wall St. protestors grow in numbers, their message and demands become increasingly obscure and disconcerted. It seems everyone has their own answers and demands to our economic woes, and are quick to blame whatever institutions or ideologies they feel are responsible. Everyone’s jumping on the bandwagon; from the unemployed, to the unions, to celebrities like Michael Moore. What is clear, however, is many others are now chanting along side people like Michael Moore, a well known socialist, and are now blaming capitalism and free markets as our problems and cheerleading socialist type ideologies and bigger government as a solution."
I suggest people read this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html?_r=2&ref=columnists
First paragraph:
"It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent."
You decide...
The fact is that there is no successful society that has not threaded a collective economical ideology. There will always be a need for collective contributions for the good of all.
Market economy ("hands off" systems, such as Laissez-faire capitalism) Mixed economy (a hybrid that blends some aspects of both market and planned economies) Planned economy ("hands on" systems, such as state socialism) Traditional economy (a generic term for older economic systems) Participatory economics (a system where the production and distribution of goods is guided by public participation) Gift economy (where an exchange is made without any explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards) Barter economy (where goods and services are directly exchanged for other goods or services)
I feel as though people are listening more to fox news than the real message. It is not socialism or communism it is something new. Unfortunately the people protesting are not just kids, protesters range all ages. I protest because the owner of my company is a billionaire and I can barely afford to keep my car running, and I graduated college with good grades.
returning to ideas that were once corrupted will only serve for them to be corrupted again in the same manner that they were in the past. The ideas from America's beginnings are dead. Like it or not we need REAL brain power, to find a NEW solution. I may not like the fact that OWS seems to be without definite purpose, but at least they are willing to rise against what they know to be wrong. The solution is far less simple. We cannot simply revert. The world is not like it was then. We need to reverse the devastation we have caused. "You cannot solve a problem in the same mindset in which you created it." -Einstein- thus new ideas are necessary. Like any good musician will tell you, a good song is built off the imitation of other great men's work. Likewise a solution may be derived from some of the core principles of ideas that have proven useless in the past but the execution must be radically altered and tested to have any real affect. What scares me most is that to solve this problem we must ask the American people to do the one thing they hate most, use their own minds and create original ideas.
I'm starting to think that commie trolls are really taking over this movement. I might bail on the whole thing altogether.
we don't need name calling. not everyone have to agree with each other. this type of mean spiritedness is what is keeping our society from comming together for solutions.
i agree but someone who disagreed with me just unleashed a litany of insults about how i'm a moron, i'm ignorant, etc.
Why give that person a greater audience by respnding? Take the high ground.
I did. However he is one of the people who is very active on this forum; his comments are all over the place.
That just means that he has proven himself to be counter productive and possible destructive to even his own cause. When others read his post, we can recognize the quality and merit of his intentions.
You can't talk sense to crazy. It is pointless.
I guess this is something you will have to learn for yourself.
Trash.
Truly free markets don't work. There's always regulations. But, those regulations have to be for the good of the vast majority. Not for the lobbyist who pays the most money for influence.
It's gonna be a long road . . . . . .
I would put forward that the American "Principles" you'd like to "re-establish" have never truly even been in effect. Before the day the ink even dried on the Constitution, the founding fathers were, in a variety of ways, behaving in a way that is in direct opposition to the principles outlined in the Constitution. I say it's time to ENACT the CONSTITUTION.
How "free" was the market when everyone was bailed out? How come the market is only "free' on the way up? How come on the way down the "free" market titans of business went crying to their Uncle Sam to keep them afloat? And what did these titans of industry do with the $$? They continued to line their pockets at the expense of everyone else.
did you even read the post?? we haven't had free markets since the inception of the Fed, and corruption of our gov has been destroying markets for years now. Please read the post before you drunkenly shit out of your mouth again
This isn't an attack on the rich. There is nothing wrong with being rich. There is a problem with being rich and stealing from the poor. There is a problem with few people controlling the wealth, and to that end there is a problem when those who control the wealth are not helping their country and society progress.
David Walker, former US Comptroller General and chief of the GAO, warned before the 2004 election that if large economic changes were not made, by 2009 the United States and its taxpayers would not be able to afford the interest payments on the national debt. A study authorized by the US Treasury in 2001 found that in order to keep servicing the debt at its current rate of growth, by 2013 income taxes would need to be raised to 65%.
If the United States cannot afford to pay the interest on its debts, that would be the final stage of economic collapse and hence result in a total textbook bankruptcy. The systematic crisis would in turn spread to the rest of the world.
How did this happen? Why is the US national debt $14,819,350,000+? Of the 203 countries in the world today, only four (!) do not owe others money. The collective external debt of all the governments in the world is now above 40 trillion dollars and this number doesn’t include the massive about of household debt in each country.
The whole world is basically bankrupt. But how? How can the world as a whole owe money to itself? Obviously, it’s all nonsense. There is no such thing as ‘money’. There are only planetary resources, human labor and human ingenuity. The monetary system regulated by Federal Reserve is nothing more than a game… and an outdated and dysfunctional one at that. Those in positions of social power alter the rules of the game, at will. The nature of those rules is guided by the same competitive, distorted mentalities that are used in everyday “monetary” life, only this time the game is rigged at its root to favor those who run the show. For example, if you have 1 million dollars and put it into a CD at 5% interest, you are going to generate $50,000 a year simply for that deposit. You are making money off of money itself… paper being made from other paper … nothing more - no invention - no contribution to society – no nothing.
That being denoted, if you are a lower to middle class person, who is limited in funds, and must get interest based loans to buy your home or use credit cards, then you are paying interest to the bank, which the bank is then using, in theory, to pay the person’s return with the 5% CD! Not only is this equation outrageously offensive due to the use of usury (interest) to ‘steal from the poor and give to the rich’, but it also perpetuates class stratification by its very design, keeping the lower classes poor, under the constant burden of debt, while keeping the upper classes rich, with the means to turn excess money into more money, with no labor.
That reality aside, there are other games in the system which have worked for decades, but are just now starting to bloom into the inevitable mathematic disasters that should have been anticipated 100 years ago. The point is, our system is broken. Simple policy change will not solve our debt problem. We need to alter the governmental paradigm if we wish to repay our debt. First step: our government must fire the Federal Reserve Board.
Some say real free-market economics is the best system, although we've never really seen what that looks like. The Federal Reserve squashed any hopes of a free-market economy. In my opinion the most innovative, necessary, and implementable solution is a resource based economy.
Project Earth: A Resource Based Economy Explained http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDhSgCsD_x8
If you love capitalism, but hate the Federal Reserve, ask yourself this: if the current market is a failure, how can you erase the world's debt? We in the US owe the world everything. Not only are we indebted to the world literally, but we, the leaders of the free world, have been leading the destruction of the environment for how long? Do we not owe it to the world to fix it? We have much of the world's resources, we have the greatest education system in the world, what are we doing wrong?!?! Why do we not take it upon ourselves to construct a sustainable global economy that is based on the natural resources of the planet and use this global economy the repay our debt to the world? I know people love to fantasize about the wealthy and powerful America, but listen, we're indebted to the world! Time to grow a pair and pay the world back. And I know, a resource based economy is “Communist” and “Utopian” STOP ASSIGNING MEAINGLESS WORDS TO IDEAS.
The system is a resource based economy, and it is neither communist nor utopian. This is an economic system which should not be confused with a political system.
i really don't know what you are trying to say but we don't live in a 'free' world, we by far don't have the best education system in the world, i am not calling for a simple policy change but a drastic reduction in the federal government, the Fed and gov are both very responsible for our indebtedness, and we will only make things worse unless we go back to the principles this country was founded on
If you are calling for the end of the Federal Reserve - amen. If you are calling for smaller, local government - amen. If you are calling for a government backed by the constitution - amen.
I hear that. Check it:
http://www.occupytogether.org/
gekko - Read this.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/to-all-the-people-who-are-against-this-movement/
I disagree. A large part of what's happened here is that we have privatized too much. The free markets are only free until someone gets enough money to control the market unfairly. That is why we are seeing such a concentration of power in such a small number.
I used to be libertarian. Then I watched businesses outsource jobs to places with rotten working conditions, employ child laborers, and use workers who are essentially slaves. And why has this happened? The businessmen say they are forced to do this to compete. This is pretty much the same argument the South used to try and keep Slavery in place. And this what free markets devolve into if we do not have things in place to protect the public good.
There has to be a balance. Even Adam Smith knew this. Frankly, I think Ayn Rand has a lot to answer for.
free markets don't 'devolve' i'm sorry.. since globalization, we have mixed our working class with the rest of the world that lives on $5 a day or less, and can do the same mundane jobs that americans used to have for a fraction of the price. Sorry but this would have happened no matter what system we had in place. I believe americans have the ingenuity to lead new markets that the rest of the world cannot easily mimic that can turn us into a producer nation again. The only problems is we are stifled by the fed and the government who are in bed with walls st and other corporations and have thus stolen a huge portion of all markets.. that's what needs to be corrected
How would you do this? If we remove the government from regulation entirely, what mechanism would prevent businesses from doing business with slave labor?
i'm not saying we remove regulation entirely. they need to be there to protect property rights and contracts-that's about all. i would argue that when the government stifles free markets as much as they do now, it forces producers to leave the country or just not even bother at all..cutting the supply of jobs to the point where you can have the hordes of people without jobs to do anything for you for a couple of peanuts...which is really just a form of paid slavery
You seem to confuse law (common and constitution) with regulation.
"i'm not saying we remove regulation entirely. they need to be there to protect property rights and contracts-that's about all"
You are saying remove all regulation. Contract, and for sure property rights are not 'regulations', they are rather deeply entrenched in the constitution. Again, contract and property rights are basic law, not regulation
"cutting the supply of jobs to the point where you can have the hordes of people without jobs to do anything for you for a couple of peanuts...which is really just a form of paid slavery"
....what you are describing is the 'raise to the bottom'. Regardless, your implication more or less backwards. It is not regulation which drains the jobs out of the country. it is regulation that support keeping job (productive means and relations) within a local/regional terrain. It is precisely due to regulation (GATT, WTO, et al.) that has caused a raise to the bottom. The people who brought you the raise to the bottom at last feel the pinch of that system. There is a whole argument to be made about the degrading standards of living. But i believe that's not what this movement is about. This is precisely then what Zizek ment with wanting not HIGHER, but BETTER standards of living.
Remember, you are describing "Diminishing returns". I remind you, this is precisely what modern economic theory is advocating (laissez faire). Its the search for the last positive return (marginal return). Now this precisely is interrupted, prevented, or if you like shifted, by injecting of regulatory regimes.
http://youtu.be/SovALlOhSg8
But, under your system, if government is not removed in its entirety, what is to stop the very wealthy from purchasing the government and doing away with regulation they don't like or buying off the government so that rules are not enforced when they are inconvenient? They just wouldn't isn't an answer.
The problem that I have with libertarianism is that it is so cut off from real human behavior.
Slave labor isn't nearly as profitable or stable as willing labor.
But it very often is. http://mgagnon.myweb.uga.edu/students/Peacock.htm
while i'm not sure if discussing slavery is all that acute, here some of my thougths.
boredperson is on to something;
The difference of slave labor to willing labor is that in slavery the manufacturer still owns you as a productive means. That has become disoved in the capital market where workers 'rent' out their work. They become detached from the manufacturers productive means. On the other hand, labor does not own nothing anymore, other than their own time. And it is this that they rent out - at a market price.
Capitalism prefers willing labor, because they can discard that at any moment. That's the commodification of labor. Slavery is utterly inefficient, once we see labor in the light of profitability. In light of economic cycles the capitalism finds it undesirable to own massive labor forces in times of downturns. I know there are many nuances to this, but this is not a history of slavery. :-)
Do you really think that old slaves are kept around all that often? You can simply work most of them to death. In fact, that is what happened a lot of the top. Life expectancy was not (and still is not) good for slaves. You can also sell them to others, and you can make more just by raping (or having your buddies rape) female slaves. If you do not wish to keep a slave inventory, you can do what most business do that use slave labor - rent someone else's slaves.
Slavery is wrong because it is wrong to make people property, not because because it is unprofitable. If you are relying on the market to prevent slavery, you will fail.
thats a normative stand, and OF COURSE, i agree that slavery is wrong. Jez! I didn't want to leave that impression. My point was to show how in theoretical terms slavery and waged labor are rather correlated. Waged labor IS the Mode of Production in capitalist society. It is precisely this separation of the worker's loss of his very own Mode of Production that is at the core of that critique. In its wake comes the transformation from slavery into a true capitalist commodity; waged labor (selling yourself on the open market, you don't own yourself [i.e. the time you sell]).
That said, please lets not lure ourselves into the believe that 2nd and 3rd world labor relations are anything but benign. No they are not slavery, technically. But at what point are we merely talking semantics (where the ENDS are rather the same, and only the MEANS seam different). People, societies, cultures, systems, etc. can learn from their mistakes. However, remember, nothing prevents the future from MAKING ALL NEW MISTAKES. 2nd/3rd world labor conditions reflect nothing but the externalization of all "cost" from the1st world sphere.
You noticed i pointed towards the NORMATIVE. And there we have it again. The West clearly does not see the dire labor conditions in the third world (sweatshops, foxcon, what have you) as problematic. In fact, this normative stance has become reified as a Positive Fact (culturally, sociall, economially, poltiically). That is, there is no slavery in the 2nd/3rd world (and as you said yourself, slavery is very bad). Yet we nevertheless continue to treat people in very similar terms, while at the same time denying them the recognition of that very exploitation (inhuman exploitation and condition) *. It all comes down to this; in the west we sell yourselves the illusion of having environmental and ethical products - by the sheer fact of having exuded cost which otherwise would show in s commodity's price. What in fact is happening is the externalization various cost outside of the neo-liberal-accounting-ledger.
* Remember human rights- and cosmopolitan discourse in fact is a (neo)-LIBERAL discourse (run by the west). I'm sure people don't like to hear that, but that is precisely what it is.
Here a quick thought by Marx on Slavery; "The slave, together with his labour-power, was sold to his owner once for all... The [wage] labourer, on the other hand, sells his very self, and that by fractions... He [belongs] to the capitalist class; and it is for him... to find a buyer in this capitalist class."
You said, "slavery is wrong", yes! But so is, "exploitation of people in 3rd world sweatshops"!!!
Must not have had much exposure to the philosophical and intellectual core of libertarianism.
Corporations are a creation by the state first of all so if you are protesting corporatism by necessity you must be protesting the collectivist action of the state.
Febs; i think you need to be careful in you terminologies. Corporation and Corporatism are distinct concept. (if i understand the point you are trying to make). (sorry if i completely misunderstood you).
Don't let yourself get distracted by the same stem of both words. Your rhetorical move that equates Corporation and Corporatism indeed would support your point of 'protesting collectivist action by the state'.
The problem is, Corporations and Corporatism are distinct conceptions. they do not support your third point. That point being the necessary consequence (you make it sound like a sylogism, which it is not) of protesting collectivist action of the state, per se. ----- Corporation IS NOT Corporatism ---- (so no syllogism there)
One can be against corporatism without being against the idea of corporations in theory but I find the practice very hard as a state creates a corporation through a charter how can corporations not be incentivized to influence the state as to the terms of that charter?
Ok I see where you are coming from. Corporatism means different things in Europe than in the U.S.. You lean on the american conception, I essentially postulated the continental form. Fair enough, I think its good we cleared this up. :c)
So let me try to respond to the Corporatism according to this definition: “[c]orporatism usually refers to the domination of the state by the economy, and the word is derived from "corporations", that is, a reference to big business which has enough power and money to challenge the state's political power.” (wiki)
Indeed, we all may agree that there is a rather close (historic) correlation between the State and the Corporation. You may even say that the State is merely a very, very, very special corporation (we could go down to Hobbes or indeed the medieval Papacy, but lets not go there!) Hobbes, I think was reasonably clear that they are not equal.
That said, you essentially say that corporate charters are structured in such a way that they MUST entice corporations towards altering their very own 'founding charter'. (this is very theoretical, but so be it)
I think this is a very interesting point. But first; historically/theoretically speaking we may say that the corporate charter is (or was) a 'concession' by the state. As such it was NOT open for negotiation or alteration, least of by the corporation themselves. The corporation was what it was, and that was that! But as I said, you have a point.
That is, it is precisely here that the historic discourse of the personification of corporations gains momentum. For in order for corporation to break out of the iron grip of corporate charters, they had to re-define themselves in a way of injecting them into the States political decisional making process.
Long story short, corporations became ever more persons (if only for legal purposes). All this in order to partake in the political/democratic decision making process, and to essentially influence and 'alter' their very own 'charter'. The interesting thing is this; the process of 'altering' their very own charter now occurs through a 'Human Rights Discourse'; in particular the rights discourse of this countries own constitution (say, 1st amendment, or 14th amendment).
To keep this short; it comes down to the question WHETHER and to WHAT DEGREE corporations are 'persons', and for WHAT PURPOSES. Evidently, the more we give in to the notion that corporations are person, the more their propensity to alter their very own “charter” by an inalienable human rights claim (free speech, etc.)
Lets tie this back to you saying; “how can corporations not be incentivized to influence the state as to the terms of that charter.” This is exactly today's problems. By ever more personifying corporations we are ever more 'incentivising corporations' legitimate claim to“alter their charter”; all via a discourse of Constitutional protection of citizen rights (say speech, property, due process).
Thus, the State-Corporation-Divide was initially there (Hobbes, et al). However, as you point out, it has become diluted by the very obfuscation, if not rectification of corporation as persons, citizens, what have you. In short, that corporations are persons, and that they also lay claim to the state-hood I think is a serious problem.
Last word. Remember; we give corporations constitutional protect rights less because they deserve them, but rather to protect the very Constitution which is the guarding of our fundamental rights in question.
Good convo btw. I have a dinner meeting in 45 minutes so I need to get ready to go. I will check back later tonight however.
If you read the case that is cited for corporate personhood you find that it was an error in the clerk's record keeping by the omission of a "not" that was used as precedent for all future cases. Yes - the entire idea of corporations as a legal person was due to a typo in US caselaw. Sad.
Oh I do understand the argument in favor of corporate personhood as it protects the investors I disagree with it as I tend to not like legal fictions as a way of trying to escape the harsh decisions of apply a rather inflexible legal framework to the almost infinite flexibilities of human interaction in the real world.
So we agree on the pitfalls of the idea but seem to also agree that corporations should exist (albeit not as legal persons) in society. So how do we return the rather strict charters of the past and modify them so as to prevent of slow the creeping influence of corporations into the state and the state into corporations?
That is rather the crux of our problem and what we are attempting to solve as a movement isn't it?
indeed! about the clerk 'mistake' .
yes, i think we (at least hear) agree that coporations have a place in this world. But as you said, how do we get back to an acceptable level of when coporations have a reasoanble place in this world.
I will find some more time later to respond to this. All i say for now is that
What to do? this requires a shift from unfettered market principles where the best gobal resource wins (as in your case, an IT resource). I say so much, this requires a shift from the domestic to the global scale. In other words, this can not be solved by one nation at a time.
yes, btwy. very good convo.
Thank you. Look forward to continuing it later.
Ok we’re on the same page on the whole corporate history (fiction, concession, realist theory etc.) :c) This is good. First I thought I respond with GATT, WTO, NAFTA, etc., free trade policy, i.e. deregulatory actions. That’s one approach. However, I sense that this may get us away from the talk of fettering corporate action.
Another way would go down the state centric regulatory discourse, but lets skip that for now as well. :)
That said, the follow are points that come to find.
the corporate personhood (i.e. rights discourse) is ‘far outside the barn’. My sense is that this is a tough one to get past the Courts. Though, I disagree with the accelerated trend of corporations using the human rights language to take hold of their claims (see England: J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom,) As such, corporations (via the personhood argument) should not be allowed to parse the HUMAN RIGHTS Discourse.
We must look at Citizens United vs. FEC (incl. Its precedence Bellotti, Buckly, Valeo) and scrutinize the re-developing concept of Speech. The argument developing there is as follows. Speech right is not a Right to Speak, but a Right to Listen (1st amendment). A Right to Speak is fundamentally different from a Right to Listen. The Courts have construed the matter such that corporations have not a Right to Speak, per se, rather their Right to Speak is inextricably bound to peoples’ Right to Listen (notice here; corporate speech rights are Derived Right – a right for people to hear all utterances). We need to return to the notion of speech as an Active Concept. It is dangerous and false to regard speech merely ‘a marketplace of ideas’. I say this, since this market conception of speech must necessarily come to the following conclusion; the more entities speak, the merrier for all of us --- what follows is marketizcation/economization/commercialization of speech. That some speech may drown by the ensuing flood of communication should be apparent (though the courts don’t see it that way). As it may be, since the court agrees that speech is merely a ‘market of ideas’ it follows naturally that speech must not be regulated. However, speech is NOT driven by a marketplace of ideas. All it is is a human right capacity to speak individuall, actively and freely!
the courts/legislature/etc. ought to ‘fix’ Citizens United vs. FEC. Companies (corporations) should have no direct say via campaign financing or campaign contribution (disclosed or not). We have Political Action Committees (PAC). These PACs provide sufficient channels for corporations/groups to participate in the political arena; if they desire to do so.
The lobbying industry should be severely curtailed. Yes, I know this will require regulation. The Beltway’s 'revolving door' circus of special interest (whether unions, non-for profit, corporations, other misc. interest groups, states, governments, etc.) cuts deep into the problem of money/interest distorting this country’s political decision making process (i.e. democratic election). We all know that the system is corrupted. For lack of better words; the lobbying industry is merely an institutionalized and legalized process of corruption. So let’s stop with that, Absolute! NO exception. Note: we will still have PACs for the participation of group interest in the political arena. Remember, we already have a ‘democratically operating’ system. Why double/triple counts votes of groups that already have been accounted for by each individual’s vote (by ballot, etc.). In other words, groups should have no right to vote or to distort the democratic decision process (beyond PAC). In short, people vote, not groups. As the old adage goes; ‘One person, one Vote’
Sorry for the slightly delayed response.
thoughts?
2.Money is speech so I agree with some concepts in Citizens United and you are correct the right to speak in no way means anyone is compelled to listen. This is bundle of number 1. I don't believe corporations should donate to campaigns but I feel they should be able to get their opinions on issues directly affecting them heard - as they are the concerns of a percentage of the individuals who have invested.
I know all about PAC's (I run one). I think we should do away with PAC's altogether and allow any individual unlimited spending or any non corporate group unlimited spending - the only issue is the corporations (not sole proprietorships or partnerships) would be prevented from donating to political actions as part of the charter of their incorporation.
Perhaps we should have half the time Congress is in session just be lobbyists who come and speak to the assembled crowd on their issue and that is the only time they are allowed. One on one in private seems to be too easy to wink wink nudge nudge some agreements. One on one should always be reserved for individual citizens.
So....lots of issues to deal with there. hooo boy.
excellent, and very constructive thoughts. Cheers. Greetings from Brooklyn, NY
???? hmm i was always told corporations were just another form of private ownership... where did you conjure up this definition of corporation
The dictionary. All business law.
A corporation acts under a charter from the government - it is how they become a corporation because it requires them to be incorporated.
How do you not know this?
Or this is not an either/or situation, and life requires a balance. OWS happened because things are out of balance. Libertarianism is utopic. It cannot be a pure think in real life unless you honestly believe that the person who becomes the richest is the morally best person. That isn't how the accumulation of wealth and power works. Yes, good people can be very rich. So can bad people. All it takes is a few bad people with a lot of wealth and power, and they can rig the entire system against everyone else.
Yes, libertarianism in its purest form is not for this sort of thing. But, then, Rand never really did seem to understand human nature, even her own.
yup and shit only gets worse when we have a government that aids the bad ones.
How would removing government regulation prevent extremely wealthy and powerful people from undercutting the good?
property rights, rule of law, enforcement of contracts
!) Property rights mean that I have the right to do business as I see fit with my property. This does not in any way stop me from underpricing you until you go out of business. Then I can set the price at what ever I want. True, if I set it too high, people might try to do without, or they may be willing to steal it. There is nothing, of course, to stop a person for fixing a price just under that amount. And if that takes up so much of the public wealth that people cannot by other things, I have successfully hit other companies that aren't even in my market.
2) Rules of law are regulations. So, I guess you are saying that government regulations are necessary to keep the rich and powerful from undercutting the good. This is not really a libertarian response, so I am wondering if you mean something else.
3) The most powerful person sets the terms of the contracts, so what is to stop people who are very rich and powerful from coercing people into entering into contracts that are bad for them? Papers of indenture were contracts. Slave papers were contracts that made people into property.
All political philosophy is utopian in nature.
The thing you have to ask yourself is which situation would you prefer bad people to be in:
Business where they must compete with others and must work to encourage people to try and continue to buy their goods and services.
OR
Government where they have monopoly control and can use force (police, military) to get people to do what they want.
No, the thing we must ask ourselves is what is needed for the real world. How do we make sure that jobs are being done by children and slaves? How to we make sure our infrastructure is strong enough that people want to do business here? How do we effectively use our resources? How do we plan for the furture? Libertarianism, with its tendency to devolve into the meanest dog eating all the other dogs is not going to help the 99. In the long run, it really helps no one.
Elements of it are fine. But a real, working system cannot happen under a guiding libertarian philosophy. Humanity isn't like that.
I believe humans can interact without always being under the threat of force. I see it every day of my life.
Everyone plans for their own future - you don't need some guiding spirit to do it for all of humanity. One size fits all vision doesn't account for varied risks.
So you're okay with others using slave or child labor?
Exactly how is slave labor "not using the threat of force"?
Exactly how does "everyone plans for their own future" and "One size fits all vision doesn't account for varied risks" have to do with the fact that businesses ARE CURRENTLY outsourcing jobs to places that use child, conscripted, and slave labor? How on earth does it address the issue that, left unchecked, business will seek the cheapest labor it can get, and nothing is cheaper than a slave?
We deregulated, and businesses used that opportunity to move jobs to places where the governments turn a blind eye to, or openly encourage, the use of labor with no rights and where life is held cheap. I was actually in a discussion recently with a man who said that our government HAS to let illegal aliens work for him. He just can't compete with the guys who outsource. That's right. He is looking to import labor that is here illegally so that he can treat them worse than people who are here legally.
You're one-size-doesn't-fit-all seems pretty la-di-da about that sort of thing. Or do you suggest having a nice chat with these business people and pointing out that you "believe humans can interact without always being under the threat of force"? Because I just don't think that's going to solve this problem.
Business is about competition. If one guy starts using slave labor, and we allow it, his competitors are driven to do the same thing...or be driven out of business as the first guy undercuts them because his labor costs are so low.
Let me clear something up : Outsourcing is using employees outside your company - ie contractors. I am a contractor so my job has been outsourced to another American company. Offshoring is when the job is moved offshores due to lowers costs of business. The media uses the terms incorrectly so I can't blame anyone for not knowing this.
One makes plans in this environment by understanding the risks of offshoring. I am an IT worker and its the field where the highest percentage of work is offshored. This has meant lower and stagnant wages for people in my field since before the recession. I understand this and when I look for contract work I factor that into the rates I ask. If it gets too low and I believe I can enjoy work in another field more (including type or work and wage) then I will migrate. This is how the market takes care of gluts of supply.
There is a problem with your understanding of how wages work. Businesses cannot mandate a wage - as I just showed I can and will and have turned down positions because they wanted a wage I felt too low. They get a sub par employee for the wage they offer and they wait longer for one to arrive - this hurts the business. You see any employee has skills that are resources that are competed over. This is why not everyone in America is making the lowest wage possible. There is a balance between supply and demand.
To illustrate this with an example from my own life I went up to an employer I had been with for a few years and asked for a wage. They replied they were thinking of firing me in an attempt to scare me into backing down. I calmly pointed out that this is a business relationship and they were free to hire someone they believed was at my skill level for my current wage or less if they could find them. I walked away from the office, I got the raise.
What that guy is saying is true - especially in agribusiness. Americans are used to .99 cents for canned vegetables and 1.50 to 2.00 for frozen. Paying the existing minimum wage for migrant farm labor would raises prices to 4 - 5 dollars. If you think it is hard for the poor to eat a healthful diet now - just wait. This is one of the many harms of the minimum wage - its a price floor on labor.
I suggest we seriously re-examine our visa and immigration problem so that we can get cheap labor in this nation without violating the law and with the workers being documented.
Nobody is going to use slave labor so long as we have a governmental system that protects the rights of the people. Ours is failing to do so but not nearly to the point where it turns a blind eye to slavery.
Actually, you are making a distinction without a difference. Outsourcing is, indeed, used for both contracting and off-shoring. If one contracts to a third party, the work is outsources. If the third party is overseas, it is also called outsourcing, but it can be further designated as off-shoring. Off-shoring is merely a subset of outsourcing, not a distinctly different thing. I do not blame people for confusion about this because the terms are not used consistently even within the same industry. I also am an IT worker. In the company I work for, we reserve the term off-shoring for jobs moved from the United States to newly owned divisions overseas (lately in the Philippines). So, again, this is yet another way to use the term.
As for no one using slave labor, we certainly are turning a blind eye toward what American companies are doing overseas. Here are just a few links to stories about American companies manufacturing using it already:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/business/22slaves.html http://www.albionmonitor.com/9606a/nikelabor.html http://www.globalmarch.org/gap/other_statements_across_the_world.php
But, back to IT, I have heard plenty of IT workers make the argument that is it better to hire one developer here than ten overseas. I have also heard management make the argument that you can get rid of developers here, have a team leader in to US who conferences daily with a dev team overseas. If the team leader (often a senior dev person) is worth his salt, he will get work out of his overseas team. If he is not, he can be replaced because the US market is currently glutted with those guys. In short, the team leader is a sort of overseer.
Now the US contract worker is a whole other animal. Some are true contractors. They pitch or bid for a specific project. Then there are the "permanent" contractors. About a quarter of our guys fall into this category. Some have been on "contract" for over ten years. The company does not have to pay any sick, vacation, or benefits, and the guys still have to request time off. of they want it, just like a regular employee. It's a good bargain for the company, and our market here is so tight that no one really fusses about it. Every once in a while, they'll even make one of the guys permanent.
Don't get me started about permanent contractors. The company I am contracted to currently is infested with them and the two major companies they use simply slow down all processes and make the system entirely less efficient. It is only a bargain for price which unfortunately says a lot about the short time-horizon outlook of the department and company as a whole.
There are lots of things that are off-shored that make sense to do that way - programming, technical QA and other things and there are some things that are in general absolutely horrible to do that with. I think companies are learning for what kinds of projects that that distance and cultural separation are bad - for example helpdesk. I know your name isn't Bruce, stop pretending that it is.
So long as they have a government system which protects the rights of individuals - that was my entire point about slave labor. Protecting the rights of people is the only just function of government. Lacking that it becomes a competition for who can bring the most force to bear at a given time.
How exactly were you ever a libertarian and come to believe any of this? We never privatized too much...the government forming relationships with businesses (crony capitalism) is not the result of too much privatization. It's the result of government corruption. And, child labor laws are antiquated and ridiculous; and the working conditions are quite fair. Such "slavery" is incredibly beneficial to everyone.
I was a libertarian and I saw what the influence of libertarianism in our country's policies has done. Do you want to know who was a staunch Randian> Greenspan. And he is not alone. There was a faith in the free markets that was like a child and Santa Claus. That turned me against libertarianism. While I still believe that unchecked socialism inevitably turns into chaos, I have come to see that unchecked libertarianism turns into feudalism, at best, slavery, at worst.
And we have privatized many things that used to be more publicly funded. Much of the R&D that used to happen in America has become privately funded, to America's detriment. Our prison system has been privatized, resulting in huge numbers of incarcerations and corruption in our judicial system (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29142654/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/pa-judges-accused-jailing-kids-cash/#.TpSFJXJRyuI). Medical research has been privatized, resulting a drug industry that is not as effective and can do great harm (http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/5747).
I can go on. You ask how I could ever have been a libertarian and come to these conclusions. I lived and I observed. We need a balance. Pure libertarianism is as likely to be achieved as pure communism. Real life requires balance, not utopian pipe dreams.
Where have you seen unchecked "libertarianism" (capitalism?) turn into feudalism and slavery? The government is not an inherent part of capitalism--which is likely the cause of what you're talking about. How has private R&D been detrimental?? Our courts and our police are PUBLIC goods, and many prisons are still public. When you refer to privatization, I assume you mean "privatization," yes? Medical research not being effective??? What??? The FDA is a powerhouse of inefficiency and increases prices vastly. Where exactly do you get all of this?
How has private R&D been a detriment? Here's how:
1) There is a bias, whether overt or subliminal, that leads to the results the company wants, not necessarily what is real.
2) R&D is often limited to what the company believes will be profitable in the short term. It tends to overlook what is truly new and revolutionary or may take more years to develop.
3) Private R&D doesn't have to publish or report any negative results. That means that other companies can and will go up the same blind alley. Not only does negatively affect productivity across an entire industry, it can be dangerous, as in the case with drug testing. Currently, if a drug results in negative side effects (up to and including death), the drug company doesn't have to report it if they decide not to market the drug. That means another company can independently come up with the same sort of idea, run the test on more humans, and there will be even more bad side effects or deaths. If the research is publicly funded, it is published.
4) Companies cut R&D in tough times, so when new ideas for new things that create new jobs are needed most, companies tend to do the very thing that would stop this from happening.
And, by privatization of prisons, I mean corporate run prisons version government run prisons. I have never heard of any judge being bribed to falsely find kids guilty by a government-run prison. If corporations running things that used to be public for a profit is not privatization by your definition, we really are not speaking the same language. So what is your plan for true privatization and enacting true libertarianism with the current batch of humanity and money distribution? If you have a sound plan, I am more than willing to listen.
your delusions of reality are alarming Dea
I just read this by Dea, "3) Private R&D doesn't have to publish or report any negative results. That means that other companies can and will go up the same blind alley." and thought "how true it is", in each and every area of technology. Not a delusion, perhaps an inconvienent fact of capitalism for the sake of power rather than investment. Intellectual greed. Hard to minimalize the fact that public product of research has real value. We're seriously short of that in renewable energy device and storage research available to the public as an example.
Ah, nice to see you refute with facts and real examples.
But, then when reality is not on your side, it's really hard to refute a detailed post with actual resources.
it is scary to realize there are people out there who think like this
Yes, reality is frightening to the young and the people who really, really believe hard in utopic philosophies.
That is why you have to resort to insults instead of facts and ideas.
1) If a company releases falsified reports about a bogus product to get investors to invest, and then begins to sell this bogus product or never even releases it...how exactly do you think that it will fare in the market? It will lose plenty of credibility of course, as well as consumers and investors.
2) This is surely not a comment on private/public R&D.
3) They may not HAVE to, but don't you think it will be profitable to do so? To gain credibility? And therefore investors and consumers?
4) If R&D was the answer to economic busts.....yeah, I don't even know. Wouldn't government as well cut R&D?
The court system in America is INCREDIBLY corrupt. It is privatization; however, the government sometimes likes to quasi-privatize or pseudo-privatize. Privatize everything. Restore complete property rights. Get rid of the government. Profit.
1) Because it happens now. Things don't quite pan out as the research suggests, but it takes years before it is caught, and the company has other products in place.
2) It certainly is. Look at publicly funded research in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Compare it to the ROI and timelines compared to private companies. There is less room to fail or researchers are let go. That means less risk taken and a need for quicker returns.
3) Actually, the argument is that is is profitable NOT to do so. Why should another company benefit for free from the cost of my research? Since we have seen that doctors tend to prescribe based on relationships with drug company sales people versus pubic perception or the actual effectiveness of a drug, there is nothing to punish companies for not reporting, and nothing to reward them if they do.
4) That depends on tax revenues which are dependent on wealth. We have seen an increase in overall wealth, productivity, and value in the market as we experience what has been a bust for the majority. If tax rates were at Kennedy levels (or, for a while, at Eisenhower levels), the funds would be there for R&D despite the "bust" we are currently experiencing. On top of that, the government can effectively temporarily spend at a deficit to jump start the economy. This has worked in the real world in a way that lowering taxes never has.
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." Samuel Adam's
I find it interesting that when young people,vets, retired people, and and whole host of people express themselves just as the founding father's intended, somehow it becomes "unamerican" or "gets a socialist label applied. The other issue here I might add is where in the constitution is capitalism established? I see the word "people" quote a bit, but have yet to discover the word capitalism, perhaps I might be reading the wrong constitution?
I agree, and patriot4change describes some detail. Through an Article V convention we can purge our goverment of socialist, communist (or worse) infiltrations. And it is infiltrated, seriously. 9-11 showed us what the infiltrators are capable of. This is coming from the citizen that has the only web site on the planet that has a feasible, detailed explanation of what happened to 2 towers in NYC on that sad Tuesday. http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html In fighting for 9-11 I learned that infiltration extends to considerable groups on the ground. It is possible that part of MKultra's purpose was to create citizens that were mentally unable to deal with the actual methods of detecting and removing the infiltrators. Later they are assisted into positions of leadership with built in supporters.
In arguing for truth I learned that FREE SPEECH is all but totally abridged. There is a major effort by the infiltrators to disrupt and prevent EFFECTIVE organization. It turns out that Article V of the Constitution is a decent litmus test for a person who says the are opposing the current government. If they refuse to consider it, they are in question. If they are unable to understand it, they are in question. Meaning, . . . all true Americans need to study Article V and the constitution. Here are some compiled facts on Article V. http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html By starting with a revision to the First Amendment, we assure that voters are informed. http://algoxy.com/poly/meaning_of_free_speech.html Revision of the First Amendment simply assures that speech vital to survival will be heard and understood removing corporate media control from the equation.
you can call us hippies and communists but a majority of us just want an end to corruption. I don't want unchecked capitalism. I want to work, pay my fair share of taxes for services that improve my life and the lives of my children and the broader community. And I'd like corporations and the very rich to have to follow the same rules. so simple.
and that's what I want too. but with a government that passes laws to the highest bidder the game will never be fair. Our markets are destroyed by the Fed and the federal government whom have caused much unbalance.
Yes, i do believe there is a problem in the current political landscape. Particular the BELTWAY POLITICS. However, you should take notice that this is WHY this movement is WHERE it is, and why it is not down in Washington. I do believe there is a deep loss in faith in the current political landscape (this sentiment, i believe, non-party-specific). But you also should know that i include state politics in that as well. I add this caveat, in order to avoid a segwaying into a federalist vs. anti-federalist discourse. It is about the current political regime, which i believe is entirely dislodge from the popular reality.
Now, you say "Our markets are destroyed by the Fed and the federal government whom have caused much unbalance". I would like to hear what your thoughts are on, say, 'To Big To Faill'? My hunch is that you may say that the banks should have had allowed to fail. If so, i tend to agree on this. What we have otherwise is massive intervention and transfer of profit/loss, not to speak of moral hazzards.
However, there is a follow up question. Should this country have institutions (say private for now) that are too big to fail? My suspicion is that you still may say, yes? I have some thoughts, but first would like to hear your opinion.
I believe in free markets and there are no bailouts in free markets no matter how big the institution. I say the banks should have wrote down their losses to the market value of the collapsed assets and allowed investors to buy them up. they could have been securitized again and the homeowners could have negotiated the new terms with the new owners of the securities. the banks would take the loss of their ridiculous risks that they were allowed to make because of fannie and freddie and the Fed. If they failed, they failed- but we would begin the healing process much sooner and not prolong it like we are now. look at iceland, they let their banks fail and now they are much better off because of it.
i tend to be with you on the whole fannie/freddie mae disaster. At the same time i think its not quite as easy as saying, 'let them fail'.
As it may be; i believe you haven't answered the second question. GOING FORWARD, do you subscribe to an economy that has institutional formations which are 'to big to fail'?
Yes banks should have absorbed the costs themselves, Of COURSE!! Fact is that they were to TO BIG to FAIL. The system was broke. The whole monetary system was frozen. It was inoperable. Companies/people couldn't not even get overnight credit for their day to day operation. Maybe we should have done nothing – i.e. let it all fail; maybe. That said, Glass-Steagall Act (among others) was repealed in the ‘99 (originating in the FDR period), and it look less than 10 years for the system to come apart at its seams. Look up Glass-Steagall; separating investment from commercial banking, etc.
Ceteris paribus the system could have healed itself (i.e. Schumpeter's creative destruction, etc.). But serious; should we let it 'SELF-HEAL'** only to continue with the same laissez faire ideology?
** btwy; healing is quite an euphemism. Its sounds rather sanitized and a 'good thing'. Remember, in order to heal you have to be sick, and sickness tends to occur prior to a healing process to start
As for ICELAND they may not have nationalized their banks (I'm not qualified to talk about this), however, what you see there is them having instituted an expanded regulatory regime.
My question is, what are the measures we are willing to take in order to reduce the chance of that happening in the FUTURE. Seriously, given the 2008 crisis (and now the whole europe-redux), why are we still argue for an UNFETTERED and laissez faire economy, ABSOLUTE? Maybe in 20 years again, but now? … come one! help me out here :-)
to be honest, our system is so decayed and our leaders and citizens are so divided that it is nearly a 100% guarantee that the system will fail- the question is when, and what are we going to put in its place? i believe a free market, with SOUND MONEY-no fractional or central banking, with very limited government that protects property rights, rule of law, and contracts. north dakota's banking system should be something we should learn from.. nothing is perfect, but the closer we were to these principles in the past, the more prosperous we were as a nation. i can't see anything else working sorry
but that bank (system), i assume you refer to the bank of north Dakota, is a state owned (nationalized) institution, no? Correct me. I'm not familiar with that system. I'm here to learn. .
that said, your on to something. Essentially you are advocating small (state) government (away with the Federal system).
Subscribing to a confederate system, of course, does not exclude the necessity of regulation, state-ownership, and fettering of market principles. As your example of the Dakota bank shows.
no it is just a system where the monetary powers are held by the treasury or in N.D's case, their state bank, who lends at almost interest free levels. as long as the quantity is controlled and there is no interest, then each state can borrow depending on demand, and any taxes generated would go directly to a reserve for the people to use again. if we nationalized the money creation powers and made money a tool of the people instead of a debt, then we wouldn't be seeing outrageous global deficits everyone seems to have. creating money out of thin air not worth the paper it's not printed on and then charging interest on it will only impoverish everyone like it is currently doing. if we want real change, the fed must be dismantled and nationalized and everyone and any excess taxes would go into a reserve to be lent to the people again
yes! and now is as good a time as any to remind everyone that we are in it together. hell, if we do happen to agree with an elected official (dem or otherwise) in no time at all we are disillusioned because the machine is busted. Good and right is swallowed up by this huge corporate/government machine. We need to bring it into the light (not be distracted by other issues) stop the bickering and focus on getting money and government untangled. By masses of people talking about this maybe our politicians will have a little leverage to make changes in policy that will actually help the citizens.
The root of all the problems that OWS supporters are protesting about is based in CAMPAIGN REFORM. Individuals (not corporations, not PACs) should only be allowed to contribute and that contribution should be max'ed at 1% of the average median income in the US (~$5000). Politicians should no longer be bought by business!!! This national movement should be organizing a constitutional amendment vote by the states - bypassing congress - to enact this reform.
Actually, your statement "re-establish our old American principles; limited government, sound money, liberty, and truly free markets" is EXACTLY what everyone wants here!!! I think you are misinterpreting comments which state that certain Socialist and pseudo-Communist/Capitalist countries are soon to EXCEED the United States in prosperity. That does NOT mean that anyone wants to be Socialist or Communist... we are just agreeing with you that we need to FIX the bullshit on Wall Street and in Washington D.C. and return our Nation back to the freedom and prosperity it once had.
yeah but you'd be surprised of how many people who are putting the blame on capitalism
A warped and corrupted Capitalism... at present.
yes but now they are beginning to look at collectivist type ideologies as a solution.. just read around
I think it is just an 'early' mindset of strength in numbers... in hopes of gaining consensus.
sure...but if this is true and if everyone wants what i want, why do the amount of protestors in D.C and the Fed branches pale in comparison to the protests on wall st? if they really do want limited government, sound money, liberty, and truly free markets, why are they on wall st? don't you think the gov and fed banks are responsible for the erosion of these principles?
Yes, I do. I am a day-trader by profession. I predicted the Mortgage crisis and the "crash" of 2008. I warned everyone to back out of the market and divest their 401Ks. And people called me a conspiracy-theorist. I just made $68,000 on cashews, almonds and peanuts. And people said I was "nuts". I will probably make just as much in "cocoa" due to the surging chocolate market. I am also a student of the 1930's Great Depression... and many people know that the SAME events are now taking place. Are they conspiracy theorists too? What I am trying to tell the OWS Movement is that the GNP and the GDP numbers that are now based solely on DEBT... are the FINAL indicators which will bring the U.S. infrastructure to the brink of consumer collapse that will effect every man and women in the U.S. Just like in the Great Depression. But, then again, maybe I'm just a conspiracy-theorist.
Ron Paul 2012.
fuck yeah
[Removed]
Troll!
Anyone who knows anything about economics (as you claim you do) knows that only government can provide "public goods". At the moment, many things that should be public goods are privatized: education, healthcare, rights to our nations natural resources, and more. This privatization has not been done equitably and so only a few have the privilege and opportunity to reap the benefit of these goods that should be for everyone. This has created inequity among us which is then reinforced by the political influence of money.
So, Mr. Economics, do some research into the failings of your own system of government before you criticize OWS.
Everyone needs to read this...