THE CASE AGAINST CAPITALISM IN 5 MINUTES OR LESS

[Jcrowley]

Anti-Capitalism in Five Minutes or Less

By Robert Jensen

05/01/07 "ICH" -- - We know that capitalism is not just the most sensible way to organize an economy but is now the only possible way to organize an economy. We know that dissenters to this conventional wisdom can, and should, be ignored. There’s no longer even any need to persecute such heretics; they are obviously irrelevant. How do we know all this? Because we are told so, relentlessly — typically by those who have the most to gain from such a claim, most notably those in the business world and their functionaries and apologists in the schools, universities, mass media, and mainstream politics. Capitalism is not a choice, but rather simply is, like a state of nature. Maybe not like a state of nature, but the state of nature. To contest capitalism these days is like arguing against the air that we breathe. Arguing against capitalism, we’re told, is simply crazy.

<snip>

In short, either we change or we die — spiritually, politically, literally.

1. Capitalism is inhuman

There is a theory behind contemporary capitalism. We’re told that because we are greedy, self-interested animals, an economic system must reward greedy, self-interested behavior if we are to thrive economically. Are we greedy and self-interested? Of course. At least I am, sometimes. But we also just as obviously are capable of compassion and selflessness. We certainly can act competitively and aggressively, but we also have the capacity for solidarity and cooperation. In short, human nature is wide-ranging. Our actions are certainly rooted in our nature, but all we really know about that nature is that it is widely variable. In situations where compassion and solidarity are the norm, we tend to act that way. In situations where competitiveness and aggression are rewarded, most people tend toward such behavior.

<snip>

2. Capitalism is anti-democratic

This one is easy. Capitalism is a wealth-concentrating system. If you concentrate wealth in a society, you concentrate power. Is there any historical example to the contrary?

<snip>

3. Capitalism is unsustainable

This one is even easier. Capitalism is a system based on the idea of unlimited growth. The last time I checked, this is a finite planet. There are only two ways out of this one. Perhaps we will be hopping to a new planet soon. Or perhaps, because we need to figure out ways to cope with these physical limits, we will invent ever-more complex technologies to transcend those limits. Both those positions are equally delusional. Delusions may bring temporary comfort, but they don’t solve problems. They tend, in fact, to cause more problems. Those problems seem to be piling up.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17634.htm

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. I'll see your case and raise you one confession of

an economic hitman.... it fits with your post... one would think.


http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/5120F8W5WDL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6186914-3674441?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178156327&sr=1-1

John Perkins started and stopped writing Confessions of an Economic Hit Man four times over 20 years. He says he was threatened and bribed in an effort to kill the project, but after 9/11 he finally decided to go through with this expose of his former professional life. Perkins, a former chief economist at Boston strategic-consulting firm Chas. T. Main, says he was an "economic hit man" for 10 years, helping U.S. intelligence agencies and multinationals cajole and blackmail foreign leaders into serving U.S. foreign policy and awarding lucrative contracts to American business. "Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars," Perkins writes. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is an extraordinary and gripping tale of intrigue and dark machinations. Think John Le Carré, except it's a true story.

Perkins writes that his economic projections cooked the books Enron-style to convince foreign governments to accept billions of dollars of loans from the World Bank and other institutions to build dams, airports, electric grids, and other infrastructure he knew they couldn't afford. The loans were given on condition that construction and engineering contracts went to U.S. companies. Often, the money would simply be transferred from one bank account in Washington, D.C., to another one in New York or San Francisco. The deals were smoothed over with bribes for foreign officials, but it was the taxpayers in the foreign countries who had to pay back the loans. When their governments couldn't do so, as was often the case, the U.S. or its henchmen at the World Bank or International Monetary Fund would step in and essentially place the country in trusteeship, dictating everything from its spending budget to security agreements and even its United Nations votes. It was, Perkins writes, a clever way for the U.S. to expand its "empire" at the expense of Third World citizens. While at times he seems a little overly focused on conspiracies, perhaps that's not surprising considering the life he's led. --Alex Roslin --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

[Selatius]

8. That's what I call neo-colonialism.

The days where one controls and projects power using the military as a prime tool are over. Today, we use money to do the same thing.

[tech3149]

15. You forgot this one

I know, it's a long read.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17635.htm

[Raksha]

194. Yes, it's a long read but worth it!

I followed up on your suggestion, printed it out and I'm now in the process of reading for the second time. This article (Richard C. Cook, "Sweet Waters From a Bitter Fountain") deserves to be the subject of a new thread. The concept of Monetary Reform, although it's been around for well over 100 years, is a radically new concept to most people in this country. It's new to me anyway, and I'm still in the process of digesting it. The problem is that we've all been brainwashed into the TINA dogma about capitalism mentioned in the OP: There Is No Alternative.

Ummm, yes there is. And it's NOT Marxism!

Thanks for the link to this article. It's truly "consciousness expanding," and I haven't been able to say that about anything in a LONG time!

[datasuspect]

131. economic colonialism?

looks interesting

[bonito]

2. No argument here ,K&R n/t

[PreacherCasey]

3. The writing is on the wall, a shame we're too busy staring at the TV. eom

[seemslikeadream]

4. if you can stomach it

not too healthy for animals either

http://www.meat.org/

[napi21]

5. There is no reasonable argument AGAIST capitolism. There's nothing wrong

with capitolism in it's pure form. The problems occur when capitolism is unrestrained! There needs to be strong rules with strict enforcement. With that any society will thrive. Without rules, or no enforced ones, the result is a two class society...ultra rich and ultra poor!!!!

[Jcrowley]

13. Start here

The misconception you state is common. Trying to reform capitalism is like trying to reform The Mafia.

Capitalism is war and those of us who do not own capital suffer from it just as do civilian populations caught between opposing armies. Capitalism is the violent negation of democracy, for it is the interests of those who own capital that determine how we live: their jobs, products, services, manufactured culture, and propaganda shape our lives and our minds.

Under capitalism everything in nature and everything that human beings are and can do becomes an object: a resource for, or an obstacle, to the expansion of production, the development of technology, the growth of markets, and the circulation of money. For those who manage and live from capital, nothing has value of its own. Mountain streams, clean air, human lives -- all mean nothing in themselves, but are valuable only if they can be used to turn a profit. If capital looks at (not into) the human face, it sees there only eyes through which brand names and advertising can enter and mouths that can demand and consume food and drink. If human faces express needs, then either products can be manufactured to meet, or seem to meet, those needs, or else, if the needs are incompatible with the growth of capital, then the faces expressing them must be unrepresented or silenced.


For further reading:
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/capstate.html

[napi21]

60. Your description of Capitalism is right, but that is why I said

UNCONTROLED CAPITALISM is the bad thing.

I have no problem with anyone trying to make money. I wish I had a little more, but I'm surviving. I have a house that is paid for, a car that is paid for (allbeit it's 8 years old), and within reason, I can buy pretty much what I want. My husband is going to retire in one year, and other than SS, we will have about $5,000 a year in income.

That's sure NOT wealthy, but OK.

Capitalism can work for everyone as long as we have ENFORCED laws to set rules so it doesn't get out of control.

Unfortunately, under the Shrub administration, no rules have been enforced. He made sure to appoint people to lead every agency who would side with the business community, ignore offences, and screw the average man. I'm actually surprised that Enron ever got exposed!

Whoever the next president is, is going to have a VERY difficult time fixing all the mess that has been made!

[malaise]

68. 100% correct

The right to vote is meaningless when the corporations decide on the candidates. Unless people have the right to house and feed their families - economic democracy - nothing else matters.

[Flatulo]

89. This troubles me...

If you decide to have 37 children and work as a janitor, do you claim the right to a portion of my income to feed and house your family? On what moral basis do you make such a claim?

[Swamp Rat]

96. Straw Man

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Flatulo]

97. OK, let me re-phrase...

If I were guaranteed food and shelter for myself and my family for the rest of my life, I would very likely quit my job tomorrow. Throw in health care and I would not even show up to resign - I'd do it by email.

I'm going to assume that many others would as well. Is it then fair to demand that others support us because we have need? Is this really how we want to live, off of the charity of others? Or even worse, if people do not donate food and shelter, to take it by force?

I would add that those who cannot work due to physical or mental disability, or dislocation caused by job inavailabilty, should always be cared for by collective society.

Other than those exceptions, no free rides.

[Swamp Rat]

98. Well, you said you would be willing to live off of charity, quit your job, etc.

Don't assume others are so lazy.

I LOVE to work. :)

[Flatulo]

100. You may love to work, but would you love to see all your efforts...

... go to support people who choose not to work?

If so, I'll forward you my address so you can send me 1/2 your net. :)

[Swamp Rat]

102. Another Straw Man.

Anyway, I am unemployed and live in a damaged home in New Orleans. You can have half of my mold.

[Flatulo]

111. Aw, that sucks dude... seriously, I feel so sorry for your situation...

I won't say anything lame like "I feel your pain", because I can't imagine how bad things are down there.

I was displaced once in my life, in 1979, when my raging drunk of a dad burned our house down. It was a real bad situation.

Anyway, I hope things start to go your way for you and the family.

[malaise]

112. You're the best

Swamp Rat. :D

[malaise]

110. Are you 'series111'?

PLease reread my post.

For the record if my neighbour had lots of kids and she and her husband lost their jobs, we would help to feed those kids. I only follow one moral code - do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Only the most heartless and greedy of societies do not provide a safety net for their citizens.

[Flatulo]

113. Please re-read my post.

I fully support local charity and a formal societal safety net. I have no stomach for those who

I tried to make it clear that I am not in favor of supporting people who just choose not to work because 'someone else' can do it. That to me is immoral and the equivalent of stealing.

I don't know who series111 is.

[Naturyl]

114. Need.

From each (you) according to ability, to each (the janitor) according to need.

With success comes an obligation to share and give back. Isn't it worth it? If you don't think so, you're always welcome to switch places with the janitor.

Yeah. Didn't think so.

[Flatulo]

118. What a horrible concept...

I think that manifesto is the most evil and immoral concept imaginable.

No matter how I parse that, and I have been studying that for 4o years, it translates to:

"I have no skills and no abilty to produce anything, but you do, so use your talent and abilty to enrich me or I will kill you."

Let me preface this by saying that I pay over 50% of my income in taxes at the federal, state and local level. I happily pay this as my dues for living in a civilized society.

However, another person's need does NOT give them a claim on fruits of my ability. How can you morally justify this? How can you force me to provide for the janitor? I would rather die than become a slave to someone else's needs.

Please do not confuse this with charity. Charity is voluntary, and I give generously. But if you demand that I work for you without compensation, you will get... nothing. What will you do then?

[Naturyl]

122. Starvation and homelessness are horrible concepts.

I believe in universal human rights. In my view, all human beings are morally entitled to the necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter, and medicine) regardless of employment status or any other consideration. To me, the view that some people are "undeserving" is "the most evil and immoral concept imaginable," as well as the cause of all injustices throughout history. No amount of self-centered posturing and moralizing can excuse the greater moral failure of those who would exclude any other person from access to basic human needs.

[Flatulo]

123. I don't think I used the word 'undeserving' anywhere...

What I did ask, and have not received an answer to, is how on earth anyone can 'demand' to be fed, housed, and treated in perpetuity in exchange for ... nothing.

Of whom would they make such a demand? And why should the demand-ee comply? Does anyone have the right to demand that I service them just because they have need? Sounds like slavery to me.

I think this is why capitalism works and communism has not. When people exchange value for value, freely and without compulsion, it passes all my moral sniff tests.

[Naturyl]

124. You didn't need to say it

The concept of "trading value for value" implies that those who do not share what you find valuable are unworthy of support.

Not everyone has "value" in an economic sense. Some people just aren't cut out for it. People you like think they should be left to rot, and I don't. That's the bottom line, no matter how you spin it.

Compulsory work is slavery (by definition). Genuine choice in employment or unemployment is freedom. You are trying to pull an Orwell by asserting the reverse.

[Flatulo]

126. It doesn't matter that people disagree on what constitutes value...

What matters is that force is never justified to extract what *you* may consider value from *me*.

The Marxist manifesto you cited always, always, always requires the use of force to extract something form an unwilling donor. To me that is immoral.

[raccoon]

146. That's what our federal income taxes are.

"the use of force to extract something form an unwilling donor. To me that is immoral."

And I am NOT saying we shouldn't pay taxes. But I would rather mine go for a national health plan than imperial wars.

[Flatulo]

127. You are perfectly free to choose perpetual unemployment.

You are *not* free to extort from me to support your choice.

[Flatulo]

195. Let's look at this more closely...

> The concept of "trading value for value" implies that those who do not share what you find
> valuable are unworthy of support.

It implies no such thing. It very cleary means that if you offer something to me that I consider to be of no value, I, as a free individual, am under no obligation to exchange something that I consider to be valuable.

> Not everyone has "value" in an economic sense. Some people just aren't cut out for it.
> People you like think they should be left to rot, and I don't.

I cannot for the life of me find where I stated this, or even implied it. In fact, I went out of my way in several posts, and will do so again now, to state that I strongly support a social safety net for those who are unable to work due to impairment or economic dislocation.

> Compulsory work is slavery (by definition).

Here we are in 100% agreement. I think we could further agree that slavery is immoral and reprehensible. No one can compel another to perform work. However, this next statement is what I find troubling...

> Genuine choice in employment or unemployment is freedom.

Again, I agree with this statement on the face of it. The problem is that if you *choose* to be unemployed, and you simultaneously also demand to be fed and housed, then you are demanding that *someone else* produce the commodities needed to feed and house you. Do you see the problem with this? It is inconsistent with our shared values regarding the immorality of slavery.

Whether one person or one billion persons contribute to your upkeep is irrelevant, because forcing someone to be your slave for even one-billionth of their time is still immoral.

I fully support anyone's right to be unemployed because they may not be 'cut out' for work, but with that choice comes a responsibility to adjust your expectations downward regarding how comfy you'll be, or if you'll even be able to survive.

I hope this post does not offend or appear to be condescending, but this is a very important notion in a free society. Everyone who is capable of it has to carry their share of the water.

[bread_and_roses]

130. So how many of the children do you let starve?

So...someone has "37 children" and you don't want to feed and house them....how many do you let starve? Thirty-five? Thirty-two? Your "someone" obviously has to be a man, since no one woman could have 32 children - do those children "belong" to the man, and so must live or die by his ability to earn money? Or do you think it's OK to feed them scraps from Capitalism's table, but not to give them a "too much?" What's too much? Good schools? Decent housing? Health care?

Your arguement is meaningless.

[Flatulo]

135. You're missing the point...

What happens when people who produce nothing consume more than the total output of the people who produce everything?

It's like a thermodynamic equation... when output exceeds input, the system eventually empties.

It's why every communist system, on a long enough timeline, fails and collapses under it's won weight. You just can't take out more than you put in.

That's why training and educating people so they can produce enough to provide for themselves is always a better investment (for them) than giving them a free meal.

[bread_and_roses]

140. No, I am not missing the point

You are not facing the implicit assumptions in either your "37 children" post or this one. You assume, for instance, in this one, that absent the gross inequities produced by the inherent nature of capitalism people will "produce nothing." Nothing supports such an assumption. You assume that people only "work" for wages and to increase their ability to consume "goods." And you assume that there is some conflict between training and education and a "free" meal.

[Flatulo]

155. I would point to communist systems that produced far fewer

innovations, in any field you care to pick, then their western couterparts.

Yet when their best and brightest come over here, they miraculously create companies, products and services that didn't exist before.

Why is it that the entire Middle East, with its 1 billion + people, cannot make a blender or even a number 2 pencil? I assure you they are not any dumber than us of European ancestry. It's the stifling economic and political systems they labor under.

[Djinn]

65. huh?

Capitalism in it's purist form IS unrestrained capitalism.

[datasuspect]

132. there is nothing wrong with fission of fusion in their pure forms

it's the application that counts.

[Odin2005]

141. Corporatism IS capitalism in it's pure form.

Corporatism is the end result of the logic of capitalism, just as Stalinist Totalitarianism is the end result of the logic of Leninist Marxism.

[Nederland]

158. No it is not

Naturally, much of this argument is one of semantics.

It is true that if Capitalism is left to run its course without government intervention the end result is Corporatism. However, that end state results in a situation where one of the tenets of Capitalism, the existence of competition, is eliminated. Naturally then, a sensible implementation of a Capitalist system is one where the government has a role in preserving competition and the rule of law. Virtually every modern proponent of Capitalism (those taken seriously for sure) will agree with this. To suggest that Capitalism is a system where the government does nothing is to create a strawman argument that virtually no modern supporter of Capitalism is interested in defending against.

[Odin2005]

168. competition is not a tenet of Capitalism. "Capitalism" does not mean "Market Economy"

Capitalism is the control of the economy by an elite investor class. Equating Capitalism with a Market Economy is Corporatist BS.

[Nederland]

169. That is YOUR definition

Like I said, this a largely a semantic argument.

I would point out however that I could just as easily prove that socialism is a flawed system by defining socialism as a system "where the elite few in government redistribute wealth from the people that produce it to their political cronies". Many might agree with that definition, but it's not exactly an honest way to begin a discussion is it? More importantly, it is a huge straw man. You are defining a system that nobody cares to defend.

So, for the record, I an opposed to systems where the economy is controlled by an elite investor class. I am however in favor of systems where the economy is defined by the decisions of individuals acting of their own free will regarding the fruits of their own labor. If you think THAT type of system is flawed, I'd be happy to have a discussion.

[karlrschneider]

6. It only works for those who are able and willing to widen the gap between rich and poor.

It doesn't get much more complicated than that.

[Flatulo]

7. My limited experience is that emigres hated it.

I work with dozens of engineers who emigrated here from former Soviet bloc countries - Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. To the last man (and woman) they have nothing but sheer contempt and loathing for the socialist systems from which they came.

This may not be a valid sample, as those who came to the US may have been differently motivated than those who stayed behind.

I guess there was a joke in Russia that went... "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work"

I for one support income disparit based on market demands. Why on earth would anyone train for the difficult jobs like engineering and medicine if they were to be paid the same as laborers? Janitors and 7/11 clerks make less money that doctors precisely because *anyone* can do the clerk's job, but only those with superior training and ability can perform brain surgery or design a bridge.

I am against throwing out the baby with the bath water. Fix the tax code to correct massive pockets of mind-boggling wealth, tie corporate compensation to performance, and deal fairly with our trading partners.

[Selatius]

12. The law of supply and demand is not mutually exclusive to the notion of socialism.

Socialism merely calls for the democratization of economic decisions. As it stands, a few who control vast sums of wealth can make the decisions that affect millions if not hundreds of millions, often despite what those millions may think.

People who push for market socialism wish to organize workers into worker co-ops, and these co-ops would be allowed to bring their goods and services to market to sell at a price they think is proper in terms of supply and demand, largely speaking. Of course, there has to be regulation of all the markets to prevent labor abuses, environmental degradation, criminal behavior, etc.

[Flatulo]

20. There is a risk with democratizing economic decisions...

... called Tyranny of the Majority. The Majority may make bad economic decisions based on the needs of the co-operative, not sound econimic principles, and thus drive the co-op into bankruptcy.

Example: A buggy whip co-op may ignore the coming of the automobile by democratic means and continue to manufacture buggy whips. Then they will all collectively starve as their product languishes.

We have managers to make informed decisions, sometimes unpleasant ones, based on market needs, just like we have elected representatives rather than a pure democracy.

[Solon]

25. And traditional business models are immune from this how?

How many businesses crash and burn EVERYDAY, even big ones, and those that have been around awhile because they can't keep up with a changing market? I can think of two big ones, the domestic automobile industry and the airline industry, both of which survive off of government subsidies, and STILL make bad decisions, and reward those who make those bad decisions.

[Nederland]

157. The situation you describe is not Capitalism

In a true Capitalist system, the airlines and automobile industries would be allowed to fail.

[Solon]

191. True, but then again, there would be no airlines to fly from or to cities...

certain industries, either at inception, or ongoing, cannot operate completely within the traditional "free" market system. This usually is because they involve having massive infrastructure support, which they cannot afford to build, like Telephone and Power, or the physical limitations of their business precludes a profitable enterprise that can be competitive, like airlines, and most other utilities(water, sewer, gas). In most other nations, these types of industries are usually either partially owned by the governments that they operate within, or they are government run to begin with. In the United States, with the exception of some of our utilities, we decided that they can set certain prices, or not(deregulation), and then subsidize them so they can continue to operate in a vital function for the country.

The greatest flaw in the argument for laissez-fair Capitalism is that regulations are absolutely needed, even if only for contract law, otherwise no one could loan money, sign a lease, or even start a business without being under some type of government supported structure.

[Selatius]

41. I respectfully but strongly disagree.

I find such arguments--and I mean no insult--rather flimsy at best.

Mainly due to the fact that traditional business models, as Solon pointed out, are not immune to making bad economic decisions either; it's a red herring to distract away from examples of bad economic decisions made in firms where decision-making power is concentrated. Just talk to the senior executives at Ford or GM to get a world-class example of bad investment decisions.

Also, with worker co-ops, nothing precludes them from electing to managerial positions fellow workers skilled in handling operations or establishing committees within the firm to set quotas, schedules, determine allocation of funds, etc. All of these managerial functions are performed in traditional firms as well. The only difference is I aim to codify a seat representing workers at the decision-making table, a seat that apparently goes missing all too often in the current order of things.

[AdHocSolver]

58. Managers make decisions based on personal benefit - no outsiders ever learn about their mistakes.

Having worked in the corporate world for many years, I have seen managers who cost their companies big bucks and seen the coverups, also. I remember one manager who cost the company close to a half-million dollars his first six months on the job, and I am not even including the unknown lost profits his actions caused. The higher ups held a meeting where they praised this guy and gave him a bonus for doing such a great job. Sort of like George W. giving Tenet a medal for the "great" job he did.

And then there is the sad tale about the EV-1 and EV-2, electric cars developed by General Motors in the 1990s and test driven by volunteers in California. The people who drove them loved them so much that GM recalled and destroyed them all. They were non-polluting and needed no gasoline. Instead, GM said that what the market needed was gas-guzzling, polluting, oversized SUVs, and that is what they produced.

Sound economic principles dictate that we should move to hybrid and electric vehicles, develop mass transit systems, develop and use more solar and wind power, and institute a national health system. All economic studies of any worth say the cost and health benefits as well as the increase in good-paying jobs would be phenomenal, and save the Earth's ecosystem at the same time.

However, don't wait too long for our current crop of corporate managers to make any "infomed decisions" anytime soon.

[Flatulo]

59. The reward system is all screwed up...

Managers look to maximize profits this quarter, even if it kills the company the next.

Benefits for managers need to be tied to long-term health of the company.

This can be accomplished by tweaking the tax code. Most highly compensated managers receive the bulk of the compensation from stock options.

[treestar]

79. Let them convince people

We rely too much on authority.

The advance to automobiles does not HAVE to be made. That's the part that is a myth for us. We see an advance and make it an imperative.

[Flatulo]

88. I respectfully disagree...

No one ever forced anyone to buy an automobile. People *wanted* them because they represented an advance over the horse-drawn buggy. It gave people freedom to move about that they never would have had before without great personal risk.

You don't *need* a fluch toilet.

You don't *need* electricity.

You don't *need* power tools.

I suppose we could go back to living in huts. I prefer not to.

[treestar]

103. Not so much things like that, I mean more like computerizing everything

for example - I'm discovering that computerizing some things isn't even desirable. But because of the advances you mentioned, probably, sometimes it seems as if we feel we have to advance everything even when we could leave some areas alone.

I don't think we should go back into living in huts. That's an unfair accusation against environmentalists, too (I've heard it before from anti-environmentalists). We don't have to go back to living in huts. We don't have to have all the latest gadgest for every purpose, either.

[Odin2005]

142. That same argument was used against democracy in politics 200 years ago.

Straw Man

[AdHocSolver]

44. The Soviet system was never truly socialist - it was state-run corporatism.

In America, we now have a handful of corporations running the state. And the corporate system is now turning the pay scales of even the technical workers into a system like that of the former Soviet Union. As corporations go through cycles of merge and downsize, pay scales of even highly trained employees are being reduced as their numbers are decreasing and their work loads are increasing. With fewer jobs, if you want to work, you must accept lower pay and work longer hours.

This country is now run almost exclusively from corporate boardrooms.

"Market demand" is a myth. Prices and the amount and type of production are set in the corporate boardrooms of a handful of our largest corporations. For a "free" market to exist, no one group can set the quantity or price of production, and entry to competition is relatively easy. None of these conditions exist today in any meaningful way.

The only capitalism that works for the people is a heavily regulated capitalism coupled with strong antitrust. Unregulated capitalism is like a country with no laws. In no time at all, the criminal element will take over the cities and provinces. What corporatists advocate all too successfully is unregulated capitalism. They demonize government because only a government chosen by, and beholden to, the people can counteract the power and wealth of the corporations. What the corporatists call free markets is merely unregulated capitalism, which is why this country is in such a deep pit today.

[Morereason]

48. I don't think that is representative of the Russian community. Speaking from experience

I live within the russian community. It depends on their class. I know folks who had the right skills (like your engineer friends) found the right job some years ago, and live very well. Also, a large percentage of the Russian population in the states are heavily religious, and unlike their American counterparts, most every Russian Church group I know acts like a socialist enclave. They disperse funds and help the poor and even middle class. They have many government programs that bring a lot of income into the Church and to immigrants households. Of course they will prefer their life under this system. But there are a wide variety of opinions. I have family members that wish they could return to "the old days". And definitely, the Russians that are outside the community are not endeared to our system IMHO.

Talk to Russians in their home country and you will find many want the old system, at least those who grew up in it.

I am not meaning to sound like I support that system. But I don't think anything has been "proven" that our brand of capitalism is superior. Just look at where the highest standard of living is. European countries with social programs and heavily managed economies.

[Exiled in America]

64. The problem is not "market" disparities. The problem is artifical, excessive disparities.

We need to add one word into almost all of our sentences when talking about capitalism: reasonable.

Example, add that one word and this sentence becomes something that can be worked with:

"I for one support reasonable income disparit(sic) based on market demands."

The problem is that in this society, whether due to loopholes, inequitable laws, prejudice or other factor, income disparity based on market demand is often artificial and inflated.

When the gap between richest and poorest Americans becomes too extreme, regardless of market demands, the the entire society and the economic system suffers. This is the fundamental critique against capitalism - that any system based on such notions inevitably leads to extreme class divides, immense poverty, intensely concentrated wealth, and ultimately collapses under the weight of is own excess.

I'm all for a well trained, well schooled engineer who has spent years perfecting a craft being well-compensated for his effort. I even understand that it is reasonable that he be compensated at a higher rate than an unskilled worker. However, I am not ok with a steel worker in Pittsburgh not being able to support his family while a CEO in California can own three homes, twelve cars and a yacht.

I don't mind that the CEO makes a lot of money. I do mind when the CEO's wages have continued to increase over the years while the workers wages, benefits, and job security have continued to decrease significantly at the same time over the same period. That means only half the "system" is working right.

Our economic and political system needs to be built around the idea of a rising tide that lifts all ships. Otherwise, its hard to deny the charge that the rich are getting rich off the backs of the poor who suffer. And that's not a just system, and none of us should want that.

There are lots of other problems. Capitalism is based on the notion of free markets, guided by an invisible hand. Companies that are profitable in that freedom deserve to stay around. Companies that fail under that system deserve to fail and be replaced by something else.

The only trouble with that is: in America we have never ever had a free market. Most of the most successful companies in this country - both historically and currently - receive massive public subsidies from both the federal and state level. When powerful companies get in trouble, they are routinely "bailed out" of trouble by the American taxpayer. The Savings and Loan bailout of the 80s might be the most famous example, but it is most assuredly not the last example.

In reality, the notion of "free market" in America is a term used by the powerful. And when they use it, they mean "free market for everyone else, not for me." So when you are laid off, or your small business folds, hey that's tough luck. But when their corporate conglomerate goes bankrupt they expect the public to pay for it. And then the companies CEO is fired for incompetence, it won't be with out a 17.5 million dollar severance package to reward his failure to thrive in the "free market."

That's broken.

Capitalism is also based on the notion of "free individuals," or the notion that everyone, with enough hard work and perseverance, has roughly the same chance at success. Any honest human being in America knows that this is not just a simplistic way of looking at things, it is a completely false one.

A study done recently (and I'm sorry I don't have the reference right now) stated that a child born at the poverty line has a less than 1% chance of making it into the top 5% of income earners in America. Whereas a child born solidly in the middle class has about a 30% chance. Now, I don't call a 30% chance that great, but its better than less than 1% - and it clearly demonstrates that no, we do not all start off with "roughly the same chance."

And that doesn't even touch the obvious issues of race, gender and sexual orientation that even further add to the disparity.

But worse still, poor and middle class individuals do not start off with the same chance of success when 61% of U.S. based corporations pay absolutely nothing in taxes. The government doesn't collect 61% less taxes because they don't pay. They simply make everyone else pay instead. That everyone certainly does include the wealthy, who pay a higher percentage. But when the majority of U.S. corporations are not required to return anything to the social structure from which they take so much, the tax burden on every individual increases, only that hurts the poor infinitely more than it hurts the rich.

I would like to point out again, that 61% of US based corporations pay zero in taxes. That is according to a 2004 GAO Report that I have read. And if pressed, I'm reasonably sure I can dig it up and cite it. It's true. I keep pointing this out because I have never gotten the kind of reaction I think I should get from anyone I've ever told.

Capitalism may work in theory, but in practice it is moving very close to being appropriately labeled a "disaster" to the welfare of too many Americans.

[bread_and_roses]

134. So people only build and heal for money and power?

I don't think human history and evolution bear that out. A love of problem solving and creating seem to be pretty much "hard-wired" into human brains.

[Flatulo]

136. Achievement can be its own reward, but when achievers...

...have all their productive effort *taken* from them by force, (ie; massive and unreasonable wealth redistribution - which we certainly do not have in the USA - yet), then yes, they stop.

Do you honestly believe that I would toil and fry my brain for 60-80 hours a week practicing engineering if I were to be compensated at a janitors wage level? Especially when all I have to do is present a "need" to society that will be automatically fulfilled by someone else, by threat of force? I would go on strike in 2 seconds flat and never lift a pencil again.

Productive people are not dogs who perform tricks for attention. They expect to be compensated. Is that wrong? They have made massive investments in time and energy to acquire useful skills.

This is what my former Russian friends tell me. In the old Soviet system, doctors and scientists made very little more than factory workes did. They were *supposed* to produce like crazy out of love for their fellow man and the glorious state. But that only fooled them for so long. So they worked less and less until the whole communist system could not produce enough goods to provide a decent standard of living.

Unfortunately, I see a trend where certain people are so wildly and unreasonably compensated that there is no longer any correlation between what they produce and what they earn. This is the problem I alluded to earlier. When we go so far in the opposite direction that individual compensation has macro-economic effects, the system also breaks by destroying the middle class.

There is a happy medium, we just have to tinker a bit to find it.

[bread_and_roses]

143. Your premise is built upon the "self-made man" myth

Neither a doctor nor an engineer becomes skilled without the huge investment society - ie, those lowly factory workers, food servers, ditchdiggers - in the infrastructure that supports 16-20+ years of schooling and apprenticeship. Nor would there be jobs for those doctors and engineers without the work and "investment" (ie, taxes) of those self-same workers. One could argue that the doctor and engineer, supported and created by the work of millions over years, owe a vast debt to society.

"Capitalism" rewards doctors and engineers not for skill but for scarcity. Without the artificial barriers that prevent more people from aquiring those skills, we would doubtless have far more doctors and engineers - and no need for them to work 80 hours a week - which, in work requiring concentration and precision, is a recipie for disaster.

And what if we need as many doctors as factory workers, and onlyas many factory workers as we now have doctors - which may well be closer to the actual need than the distorted system that capitalism now produces?

The system you defend rewards greed, oorruption, short-term profit over sustainability, the creation of artificial scarcity of needed social "goods" and the artificially sustained glut of useless china-manufactured gee-gaws like those stuffing the shelves of dollar stores.

[mudesi]

9. There is NOTHING wrong with capitalism

What this author has a beef with is communism for the upper class, also known as government sponsored corporate welfare.

In other words, the current system of corporate fascism that controls the American government.

[Flatulo]

11. Ding!

In the corporate boardrooms, there is so much skullduggery, patronage, insider information and sheer incompetence that nothing even approaching market economics is being practiced. It's more like the good old boy's club.

[Jcrowley]

18. Economy

The ‘market’ economy is unsustainable and has shown itself to be morally bankrupt, unable to innovate, fragile and lacking in capacity to cope with rapid change. The shift to a Real Economy has already begun, and is entirely consistent with the critical political and economic demands and needs of our time.

There is much confusion about what is "Economy" so let us restore the word to it's proper meaning and proper place:

economics: Greek oikonomikos relating to household management, equiv. to oikonom(os) steward + kos. -ic.I: of or relating to a household or its management

A community economy is not an economy in which well-placed persons can make a 'killing'. It is an economy whose aim is generosity and a well-distributed and safeguarded abundance. -- Wendell Berry

[Flatulo]

22. Not sure about that one...

> The ‘market’ economy is unsustainable and has shown itself to be morally bankrupt, unable to
> innovate, fragile and lacking in capacity to cope with rapid change.

This sounds bizzare to me. American capitalism has produced innovations in technology, food production, energy production, and medical advances the likes of which the world has never seen. Americans lead the world in the efficiency of producing literally *everything*. The price we have paid for this incredible machine of innovation and production is worker dislocation and stress.

Also, the author in the original reference may be confusing causality... he claims that half the world is starving because of Capitalism. Might it not be the case that the starving nations are *not* developing because they do not have market economies?

I guess I just fundamentally disagree that every donut that America eats is stolen from the mouth of a third-world victim.

[Jcrowley]

23. Very confused post

Perhaps you would want to use some examples to illustrate your points.

This in fact- American capitalism has produced innovations in technology, food production, energy production, and medical advances the likes of which the world has never seen- could be used quite effectively to prove precisely what Jensen touches upon.

As for the misinformation regarding development as the panacea for poverty/hunger (this is the same schtick put forth by The World Bank which should throw up some red flags) I suggest you examine this very short article:

Two Myths That Keep The World Poor

<snip>

Yet sustenance living, which the wealthy West perceives as poverty, does not necessarily mean a low quality of life. On the contrary, by their very nature economies based on sustenance ensure a high quality of life�when measured in terms of access to good food and water, opportunities for sustainable livelihoods, robust social and cultural identity, and a sense of meaning in people�s lives . Because these poor don�t share in the perceived benefits of economic growth, however, they are portrayed as those �left behind�.

This false distinction between the factors that create affluence and those that create poverty is at the core of Sachs� analysis. And because of this, his prescriptions will aggravate and deepen poverty instead of ending it. Modern concepts of economic development, which Sachs sees as the �cure� for poverty, have been in place for only a tiny portion of human history. For centuries, the principles of sustenance allowed societies all over the planet to survive and even thrive. Limits in nature were respected in these societies and guided the limits of human consumption. When society�s relationship with nature is based on sustenance, nature exists as a form of common wealth. It is redefined as a �resource� only when profit becomes the organising principle of society and sets off a financial imperative for the development and destruction of these resources for the market.

However much we choose to forget or deny it, all people in all societies still depend on nature. Without clean water, fertile soils and genetic diversity, human survival is not possible. Today, economic development is destroying these onetime commons, resulting in the creation of a new contradiction: development deprives the very people it professes to help of their traditional land and means of sustenance, forcing them to survive in an increasingly eroded natural world.

<snip>

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2005/11/two_myths_that.html

[Solon]

29. Most of those nations do have a market economy...

Problem is, it isn't THEIR market, its someone else's. Maybe the nation in question was ruled by Military Dictators(Argentina), who racked up a huge national debt, and, as a condition for paying off loans from the IMF or some other organization, they have to have someone else invade their marketplace, like the United States. In a case like that, usually they stay only long enough to sap whatever natural resources are in that country, ship almost all the capital from it out, then leave, leaving the people in that country holding the bag, so to speak. In a case like that, yes, eating a donut, or in cases similar to this, a banana, is stolen from the mouths of a third world victim.

[Flatulo]

32. So is everything a zero-sum game?

If so, where did all the extra donuts come from? There sure are a lot more people than there were 30 years ago.

[Solon]

37. Our economy is a zero sum game, either by design or because of shortsightedness...

its a simple fact. The fact of the matter is that EVERYTHING that we have and produce of value relies on cheap and plentiful fossil fuels as a basic source of energy. You NEED energy to produce the food, technology, and other items we need or want to survive, they don't just arise out of thin air.

These sources of fuel and certain chemicals have lead to a population explosion, which explains why we have so many people on the planet, look up the Green Revolution, and how it is based on Petrochemicals to sustain itself. However, being that fossil fuels took millions of years for Mother Nature to make, and are themselves finite, we live in a zero-sum economy. Do you see the economy of tomorrow growing, and at the same time, the world using less net energy at the same time? I don't, its physically impossible, unless we find a way to break the known laws of physics.

The fact is that we are dealing with timescales of boom and bust based on energy supply. We entered an unprecedented boom since the start of the Industrial Age and have been chugging along since. This was fine, for the first 150 years, however, now, the question is, when will the bust come? Given the creepingly rising prices for oil and natural gas, two key sources of energy, I would say we have a decade or so before the bust comes.

This doesn't mean we will suddenly run out of oil, gas, or even coal, no, what it means, is rising prices, at first, then demand exceeds supply. Then price fluctuations, market instability, etc. will become normal, because, simply put, we won't have an alternative strategy in place to cope with the radical realignment in the economy and society that will have to take place to adapt to this change.

[Flatulo]

40. No argument here about a bust coming whent he cheap enery disappears...

... but I was referring more to the process by which wealth seems to be created out of thin air by the process of faith. Faith in a currency, faith that when two persons have a transaction that both parties have come away the richer.

We create wealth when we perceive value. It's a mystery to me, like gravity, but I know it when I see it.

[Solon]

55. All currencies are backed up by something...

Granted, there isn't a Gold standard anymore, instead its the Oil Standard, that's why they call the American Dollar the "petrodollar". Generally speaking, as long as an economy is growing, the currency is stable, and creating wealth out of thin air is possible, however, any disruption in that growth, usually causes those fortunes created on air to disappear and those currencies will lose value, really quickly.

For nations on Earth, there will be a point where growth in the economy is impossible, it doesn't matter if our sources of energy become sustainable, our economic structure ISN'T sustainable. Simply put, we don't have a strategy for a zero-growth economy, even if it were powered by solar, wind, geothermic, nuclear, or any other energy source besides fossil fuels. We can build a solar panel that encapsulates the ENTIRE Sun and captures all the energy it emits, and we would still hit a wall, someday, it may be a billion years hence, when supply is outstripped by demand, but it WILL happen, even in such an extreme example as that.

[Selatius]

34. It's not that they don't have market economies. The problem is excessive concentration of wealth

Look at Mexico for an example:

Mexico could be a 1st world country if there weren't such excessive concentrations of wealth and lack of development due to lack of competition and neglect. As it stands, the most wealthy in Mexico want to keep it that way because they fear change and do not wish to give up their wealth and power, and the idea of healthy competition represents to them the threat of decreased profit margins.

What Mexico and several other countries need is an end to corporate cronyism, nepotism, the removal of dynastic political families that hold tremendous influence over both political and economic decisions in that country, a progressive tax code to take the tax burden off the poorest, social programs to combat hunger, disease, illiteracy and provide job training and economic opportunities for all as well as something akin to the SBA, except it would work to educate and organize workers into co-ops to ensure economic decisions do not become excessively concentrated in the hands of a few.

With great power comes great responsibility. If wealth can be equated to power, far too many people are shirking their responsibility to ensure the well-being of their own workers and fellow people in general.

[Flatulo]

38. Well put. eom.

[dave_p]

125. That's not the problem either

Poor countries aere still poor however you divide up their wealth. And before they reached industrial maturity, most developed countries passed through similar degrees of inequality - levels that they sadly seem to be moving back towards.

I agree with most of your proposals though - and tax needs to target wealth that doesn't contribute to the national economy. Developed and developing countries should join together to pension off the tax havens that drag us all into a race to the bottom.

But blaming inequality detracts from the bigger picture: you can be as equal or as efficient as you like, but if you can't break into the market it's not going to get you very far. It isn't just domestic conditions that count, but global market access too.

[AdHocSolver]

61. Most technical and medical innovations in the US came about through government funded research.

Much R and D was done at Universities around the country and was funded by the National Institute of Health, NASA, and the Defense Department. Even the Internet was born in Academia through Defense Department funding (DARPA). Computer systems were developed using government funding, largely from the Defense Department. I also worked at one time for a major university that literally floated on government handouts.

As to half the world "starving" because of capitalism, this is how that came about. The capitalist countries became colonial powers and destroyed the local "market" economies of the countries that they colonized. Previously, the locals had small farms growing local crops in a system of truly "free" markets, that is, no group controlled production or distribution. This provided family-supporting jobs for large numbers of people since the systems were labor intensive and relied on a stable ecology that had developed over generations. (The market economies, such as a village bazaar, existed before the colonial powers came. You are confusing market economies with corporate monopolies.)

Along come the capitalist/colonial powers and buy up all of the best land and set up single-crop plantations. This puts many subsistence farmers out of work. Fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and more recently genetically modified plants, such as those with "Terminator" seeds, further destroy the local farming. Then the capitalists/colonists steal the natural resources, install puppet governments that further decimate the country, and if the locals are really unlikely, a civil war breaks out.

[bread_and_roses]

133. no. human beings, not "capitalism" produced innovations

and since our "donuts" depend on the energy and resources exploited by force from third-world countries, we do indeed steal them from the mouths of others. That's the function of the world bank. read some history.

[Flatulo]

164. Human beings innovate *much* more under a capitalist system

We could argue cause-and-effect, but I'm sensing that I have very little chance of pursuading you that a sensible risk/reward system is pretty effective at encouraging innovation.

Relying on man's humanity or concern for the general welfare doesn't work.

Speaking only for myself, I can assure you that I do not solve mechanical vibration and fluid dynamics problems for my amusement. It's really, really, really hard. I do it for the money.

[Canuckistanian]

10. There ya go. That's what I've been talking about

K&R.

And bookmarked. And saved to Scrapbook in my Firefox.

[cassiepriam]

14. George Bush. EOM

[JVS]

16. Need there be an argument?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

17. Thats one of my professors!

He's great! (But Richard Bank would blow your mind!)

[Dragonbreathp9d]

19. Oh, nvm. I thought it said "Jessen"

[Democrats_win]

21. TGIF is the capitalist's favorite phrase. How sad to live like that.

The article in the opening thread mentions how TGIF (Thank God it's Friday) is such a favorite phrase. Life is more than a rat race. But keep chasing that dollar, driving your car to work, paying more to drive hoping to earn more, enjoying less. Working Americans support, what, 10 jerks on wall street

Work all your life and watch the DEVILopers try to steal your home so they can rape the land building more STRIP malls that sell more worthless junk putting more people in the debt whole.

[Flatulo]

24. Well, that's the beauty of the choices we have...

You can still somewhat affect how much wealth you can acquire by how much effort you expend.

If you are content with not having the latest of everything and a huge stock portfolio, then you can work a menial job and maybe make enough to survive.

If you want a 5500 sq ft home with a pool and a Lexus in the driveway, you'd best think about going to law, medical, or engineering school and bust your ass for many many years.

Of course that's no guarantee that you will have the desired outcome, but at least you have a decent shot at it. A better chane at a good life than anywhere else that I can think of.

I look at it this way - if you throw a styrofoam cup into any ocean in the world, hundreds of people will drown trying to get onto it to paddle to our shores. There seems to be some innate allure of our system that we still draw immigrants from all over the world.

[Solon]

27. See, this is where choice ends up going away...

If you are content with not having the latest of everything and a huge stock portfolio, then you can work a menial job and maybe make enough to survive.

See, in the past thirty years or so, people have participated in the rat race JUST to survive. Many work as much as 80 hours or more a week, just to pay bills. In a case like that, they hit a ceiling, and there are, in most cases, literally NO opportunities for them to move up on the income ladder. This is particularly true when they are forced to change jobs, and careers, because of things like outsourcing.

[Flatulo]

31. Oh, I agree, it sucks. I've survived 28 layoffs in my career.

and the rapid pace of change and new technology in the industry I work in makes it extremely likely that I will get the axe sooner or later. Then I will be an over-educated, over-paid useless artifact.

I loved in "Falling Down" when the guy in the street was shouting that he was not "economically viable". I see that day coming for me. That's why I live well within my means, and have a shitty little house with no land to speak of. At least it's paid for.

[Solon]

33. The biggest problem is wage stagnation...

In the past 30 years, the median wage has been largely stagnant, and not keeping up with inflation, in a case like that, its simply unsustainable for much longer. When everything gets steadily more expensive, but your wages don't change to reflect that, something is going to give.

[Morereason]

51. We may make enough to survive, but too many Americans are "dead men walking"

More Americans need to travel and live in another country. We have toys and great vacations (some) and weekend sports, but there are way too many who are living a life of drudgery.

In our country the Arts and Humanities are dying to the common man. Mostly available to the wealthy who have time and money. True Philosophic thought is rare. People are dead tired. Socializing is comparitively minimal (Americans have less friends than any other country statistically).

We are engorged with material fluff, but we are dying as a culture. If you live outside the country for a while it becomes apparent.

[Flatulo]

54. I would respond, but I want to go play with my stuff :)

Seriously, I work a minimum of 60 hours a week, and often 80. I get no overtime pay, stock options, or any other incentives. My only reward is the promise of even harder work with less resources and the never-ending threat of layoff if our management makes bad decisions.

And I consider myself one of the lucky ones.

[Jcrowley]

30. Mucho Myths

Inequality is non-partisan. The pace of inequality has grown steadily over three decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses. The Gini index, the global measure of inequality, grew as quickly under President Clinton as it has under President George W. Bush. Widening disparities in the U.S. are the result of three decades of bi-partisan public policies that have tilted the rules of the economy to the benefit of major corporations and large asset owners at the expense of people whose security comes from a paycheck.

I hear the foofaw of "choice" from my liberal friends all the time and it is a lie.

It's all about choice? So many black folks in jail. Must be the entire race is plagued with poor choice-making capabilities. Nope, no institutional racism or structural poverty involved in this grotesque injustice.

The entire country of Malawi is in a state of deprivation. Damn. A whole country making bad choices. Nothing to do with the legacy of colonialism?

How much of the world did I colonize with my daily existence? Doesn't matter. It's just all about choices.

By the way those people are being forced off their lands and that styrofoam cup is polluting our waters.

I guess American Exceptionalism is alive and well.

[Flatulo]

36. The notion that people immigrate here against their will is .. just bizzare.

> By the way those people are being forced off their lands and that styrofoam cup is
> polluting our waters.

This statement just doesn't hold water (no pun intended). There are annual lotteries to select those fortunate enough to come here. Talk to immigrants and ask them if they would like to go back to <insert country here>. You won't get many takers.

> I guess American Exceptionalism is alive and well

And I could respond that American self-loathing is alive and well.

Obviously America has created much misery in the world, as has every empire. I would argue that on balance, however, we have brought more food, medical care, and general welfare improvement than any power in the history of the world.

I obviously don't know your background, but in my limited experiences (admittedly a non-scientific sample) I find that the vast majority of persons who have immigrated here have done so insearch of a better life, and have found it.

By the way, I did read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman".

[Jcrowley]

45. You missed the front half

of the,

"I find that the vast majority of persons who have immigrated here have done so in search of a better life, and have found it."

equation and are also patently wrong as to the end result.

You get the last word as this sort of stuff is not only a-historical and divorced from reality but tedious.

"I would argue that on balance, however, we have brought more food, medical care, and general welfare improvement than any power in the history of the world."

You did know that as a percent of GDP of donor nations the US ranks dead last with a mere .11% (note the position of the decimal point) of GDP. And this doesn't even speak of the issue in detail as most of that "Aid" has strings attached.

And that's not even getting into why it is that the colonized need the charity from their colonizers.

[Flatulo]

52. Well, you've raised some very good points, which is why I joined here...

... to see if I could learn some new viewpoints from some real lefties (most of my friends would describe themselves as libertarian, as would I).

The kinds of things that come to mind for me as examples of US goodness are the defeat of the Nazis (my dad was mutilated in that conflict) and the Peace Corp. I find it impossible to feel any sense of shame or remorse over these.

I knew we were dead last as donor nations, but that .11% is of a mind-boggling GDP. Still, nations have no friends, only interests.

Cheers!

[Morereason]

56. They are lured by the propaganda in our exported media. They think we are all rich

Some come here to escape persecution, true, from many countries, but they are also flocking to other western countries, you just will not see it in our media. Right now Canada has as much or more favor than America for post soviet people, but it is harder to get in. And many come here because they believe we are all rich. I still have trouble trying to convince my relatives we are not. Our media has a very powerful presence in other countries.

[Nederland]

161. Compared to much of the world, we ARE all rich (nt)

[AdHocSolver]

63. The best way to become wealthy is find yourself wealthy parents.

If you aren't born to wealth nowadays, you won't be able to afford medical school or law school or even engineering school. Most of those who went to these schools did so using government loans and grants. These are no longer readily available.

As to all the people who want to come to America! Back in the late nineteenth- early twentieth-centuries Europeans all wanted to come to the United States because they heard that "the streets were paved with gold." Where did they get that idea? The boat companies' salesman spread that idea to sell tickets to America. What most of the immigrants found were sweatshop jobs and dangerous tenements to live in.

By the way, when I went to college back in the 1960's, tuition cost $200 a semester for 15 credit hours. Today, you will spend more than that just for textbooks. I paid for my entire college education (BA) by working part-time jobs. No one could do that today.

[Flatulo]

99. So true - in 1977 my tuituion was

I was able to foot the entire bill with a part time job.

Now you'd need a part time job as a brain surgeon to do it.

I have addressed this in several ways...

o I have only spawned one child
o I have scrimped and saved to subsidize a 4-year education at a good lib arts school. I can foot the entire bill. For grad school, he's on his own.

I did this by living well within my means and avoiding the temptation to buy a trophy home or a boat or other frivolities.

I'd love to have seen the .5 trillion squandered on Iraq used to subsidize education. So much untapped potential will never be utilized. Sigh...

[joshcryer]

26. Property is Theft.

There, in three words.

[Flatulo]

28. If that is true, then how do we decide where you will stay and I will stay?

There's an old libertarian principle that says that settlers who arrived in the New World mixed their labor with the land to make it produce food. By virtue of this effort, they became the 'owners' of the property. If you buy this, then property is a valid concept.

If you don't buy this, then yes, all property is stolen from... someone, I guess. How far back do you go? Did Cro Magnon Man steal France from the Neanderthals?

[Jcrowley]

35. Too bad it's wrong

That ole principle omits a bit o' genocide not to mention those "settlers", which they definitely were not, would have starved to death if not for the graces of the folk who already resided here (that's called compassion/sharing/socialism).

I'd suggest you read the real history of what occurred from 1513 on at least.

The "real settlers" would've died if not for a helping hand. No market principles involved.

[Flatulo]

42. I completely understand how Europeans got here.

What I was asking was, today, without the concept of property, how do you and I decide where we will sleep? The concept of property is all that prevents us from going to war over the right to stand in a nice place.

Another example. I came to the party in an rusted Escort. I would prefer to leave in your Porsche 911 Carrera. You un-prefer this outcome. How do we resolve it? Fight?

Do you see the problem here that the lack of property recognition brings?

[eridani]

66. There's a difference between land, water, etc, and manufactured items

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of men

--------Ripple, by the Grateful Dead

Where does anybody get off owning anything that was not made by the hands of men? Things that are so made are, of course, a different matter. Land, water, air, etc, ought to be owned collectively. How to decide where people get to stay? 99 year leases (which could be sold or traded) ought to do the trick.

[joshcryer]

92. It's really simple. Proudhon was arguing against "non-possessive property."

Property that by its very nature requires a force, police force, security force, whatever, to upholad. It sits unused until someone agrees to be exploited to use it (rent, mortgage, etc). But it is property none-the-less, just not property in the classic, possessive, sense.

To understand the difference between property and possesions we can form a simple axiom: All possessions are property, not all property are possessions.

The vast majority of humanity has possessions, only a small percentage actually have property in the sense that Proudhon used it.

[joshcryer]

91. That was a reference to Proudhon's "What is Property?"

He makes a very persuavive argument about non-possessive property (capitalist style property).

[Raskolnik]

74. From whom did you steal all your possessions? n/t

[joshcryer]

93. No one. :D

Poessessions are not theft by definition, whereas non-possessive property most assuredly is.

[Raskolnik]

148. Oh, so you neatly exclude yourself from the theft category.

That's a rather arbitrary, and convenient, distinction.

[joshcryer]

154. I explained myself clearly enough.

[Raskolnik]

170. Its not an issue of lacking clarity

Proudhon does, of course, provide pithy slogans, but I disagree with the basic premise that "property" as you define it is fundamentally theft.

Have you stolen the labor of those that constructed you computer? Have you stolen the property of those that built your house? Why do *you* have the right to use the labor of others for your own purposes, but you consider the use of "property" by others to be theft?

[joshcryer]

175. The labor was stolen, yes.

By those who by virtue of their contracts with their employees, denied them the full product of their labor. Of course, technically this isn't "theft." But Proudhon goes back to the very creation of non-possessive technology to show that yes, it started off as theft, and continues to be 'theft' in the sense of control and domination.

Have you read Proudhon?

[Raskolnik]

177. If it was stolen, then you stole it just as surely as anyone else.

I fail to see the distinction between those that employ others and those that merely take advantage of the end products of others' labor. If one is a thief, all are thieves.

You don't grant a part ownership interest in your apartment to the plumber that comes to fix your toilet, nor do you share your car with the mechanic who fixed your transmission, so I fail to see how you're any less guilty of denying others the full product of their labor.

Yes I've read Proudhon, and I find him interesting by virtue of his influence and in some ways insightful, but I don't think his ideas are terribly useful in fashioning a working economic system.

[joshcryer]

185. I probably shouldn't dispute that.

In our current environment of exploited labor I can't say I can get anything without it being theft in the sense that Proudhon uses it.

If you work for someone who gives you a small wage for making them thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of capital, then they are taking something from you which, because it was your labor, wasn't really theirs to begin with. It becomes theirs when you allow them to have it by agreeing to the unequitable wage system.

[slackmaster]

81. I'll give up my toothbrush when you pry it from my cold, dead hands

:nuke:

[joshcryer]

94. I don't want your toothbrush. :P

But I reserve the right to squat in that house you haven't rented in years that sits there doing nothing. ;)

[slackmaster]

95. If I had an unoccupied rental, you would be most welcome to stay in it

In exchange for fixing it up.

[joshcryer]

108. Once I fixed it up.

I ain't leaving.

[Oglethorpe]

183. In that case.......

Given prior statements, if you take a walk, and someone else decides to squat where you are squatting, i take it you don't mind.

[joshcryer]

188. There's a social concept of possession.

And a literal concept. Socially, you wouldn't take my hat that I've had for years, because that'd make me feel bad, and I might punch you in the face. But I might let you wear it, in which case for that brief moment of time it'd still be your 'possession,' literally. But you'd give it back to me because it would hurt me or I might do something to you to get it back.

An empty house that no one is using and hasn't been used for years would suggest to me coming along that it in fact is not anyones social possession, it is laws and decrees that makes it so. Police forces.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. OK

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Mr. Smith would have a quibble wiht this

mostly we DO NOT, I repeat WE DO NOT live in a capitalist system. At least not one like he or Ricardo envisioned.

On the other hand we live in a mopoliistic system, which favors the corporation over the individiual, and puts profit above all else

Hmm sounds familiar.... hmmmmm

Let me see, Mr Mussolini do tell me, what is that?

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." Benito Mussolini (1883-1945),

[Flatulo]

47. That's pretty much what I have been trying to say..

... in my admittedly ineloquent way.

Capitalism evolved as a Darwinian kind of system, where strong products/services/technologies would thrive and inefficient/useless/outmoded models would die off.

This has been corrupted by cronie-ism, cartels, and monopolies.

The best products and ideas do not always get to market. The most well-connected ones do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Well taht is because Capitalism

just like Communism are IDEAL systems, incapable of actually existing in the real world

Trust me readying trough a book on the International Political System and boy... I am going Neo Liberalism, why not call it waht it is? Fascism?

Things one does to develop fictional economies, but that is a whole different ball of wax

;-)

[Jcrowley]

53. Oh indeed we do

and what is suggested in your post is the natural outgrowth of the capitalist system. Show me one example otherwise.

There is much talk these days about how this is just some bastardized form but what it really is is just this form come to maturity. And it's very ugly.

Long past time for folks to wake up to how we are presently involved in the very fluid extension of this predatory uneconomical economic arrangement called Capitalism.

It's destroying the planet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. It is destroying the planet

but the word is just a word... since it never developed the way the theory said it would

For starters, Smith (just as Marx for Communism) must be doing somersaults in his grave

Mr. Smith never saw a monopoly he liked, for Monopolies were enemies of the system he envisioned since they ... ahem, put a strange hold in the free trade of goods.

He didn't care whether those monopolies were in the form of the East India Company, of which he was a severe critic, or if he were alive, insert in here large multinational corporation.

Hell, by the time Ricardo wrote his works, we had moved well beyond the theory that Mr. Smith wrote about... and Ricardo was the one who came with the famous words, the market will bear it, that is the price that a product will happen to have... but Ricardo was far more of a cynic

But if you believe today we live in a capitalist system, it is as capitalist as the Communist Paradise the USSR was... which is to say it was all but socialist.

Our leaders call it Capitalism since Neo Liberalism has its critics, globalization has its critics, and laizze faire (not exactly what Smith envisioned either, rather more Ricardian), has its severe critiques. But make no mistake, we have truly not lived in a capitalist system not for decades, but for centuries... the ugly little secret actually.

[JohnF]

46. Yep, dependence on unlimited growth is one of the keys drivers of our ecological crisis

Capitalism is a system based on the idea of unlimited growth. The last time I checked, this is a finite planet.

That one is a key to the environmental mess we're in. Ecological economists offer an alternative view. (as opposed to "environmental economists" who offer conventional economics with minor tweaks) Such ideas as the "steady state economy" are well worth exploring.

[treestar]

77. The growth can take place in many ways

The human mind is not finite. Agricultural methods have advanced, so that more people can be fed. The economy expands with technology and with inventions and communications, to the point where less space produces more - then population growth slows down with prosperity.

[JohnF]

84. The references to unlimited growth are to the conventional kind

References to the problem of unlimited growth are to the conventional kind involving physical throughput, from the extraction of raw materials, through their manufacture into commodities, to their output as wastes. When this occurs at rated beyond the earth's capacity to regenerate and absorb, it destroys the ecosystem. And for non-renewable resources almost any rate of extraction is unsustainable.

This of course does not apply to things like growth of knowledge or efficiency.

Agricultural methods have advanced, so that more people can be fed.

And this has historically always led to more people starving as well. It has also led to more loss of habitat and more species extinction among many other ecological problems.

The economy expands with technology and with inventions and communications, to the point where less space produces more - then population growth slows down with prosperity.


Unfortunately this has not led population growth to slow down nearly soon enough. Our physical throughput continues at levels far beyond the earth's capacity to handle it, and we've already done massive damage to the ecosystem. There's little comfort in the notion that prosperity will reduce population growth when so much of the damage is already done and signs are it will continue for a long time to come. I've called this "ecocide for a quick buck."

[treestar]

104. True enough, this is why the right wing nuts want everyone to have

more children, yet economic growth is possible with fewer children - look at all the $$ spent on kids today, as compared to 100 years ago - one kid now provides many times the economic growth one kid a century ago did.

[Strelnikov_]

50. "The time has come to move beyond “growth” as the paramount economic ideal

. . . and begin pursuing prosperity in a more local direction, with cities, suburbs, and regions producing more of their own food, generating more of their own energy, and even creating more of their own culture and entertainment. This concept is already blossoming around the world with striking results, from the burgeoning economies of India and China to the more mature societies of Europe and New England. For those who worry about environmental threats, there are solutions to work through the worst of those problems; for those who wonder if there isn’t something more to life than buying, I encourage you to consider your life as an individual and as a member of a larger community.

http://www.billmckibben.com/


By the way, No. 3 is gonna be a killer. Can't have 'Capitalism' with no return on capital. Can't have return on capital without growth.

[Exiled in America]

62. Try this - read fast and it will fit into five minutes:

http://www.mediafire.com/?3m2z4dxuwmy

[Czolgosz]

67. 5 minutes? How about 5 seconds? Capitalism is amoral (not immoral, amoral).

That's the 5 second version in the subject line.

Here's the one minute version: Capitalism commercializes labor which allows for the alienation of a person from the fruits of his or her labor and by reducing labor to a commodity it fosters the accumulation of wealth beyond one's needs and even beyond one's ability to rationally consume. What do we gain from this capitalism? Increased efficiency. What do we lose through this capitalism? One's natural connection to the fruits of one's own labor, the dislocation of labor from its position as the cardinal purpose of one's life (i.e., you shift from a working-to-live model to a living-to-work model), and the vast segregation between classes based on accumulated wealth and the unequal division of labor in society which naturally results from that disproportionate accumulation of wealth. Is that a fair trade off? It depends on the circumstances. If you are starving because your economic system is so inefficient that it cannot meet the population's needs, yes. If you covet the conveniences that greater economic efficient can afford, maybe. If the alienation of people from the fruits of their labor leads to such economic disproportionality that is causes inhuman living conditions for the poor and social unrest culminating in revolution, probably not. In sum, without capitalism labor has a moral value as the keystone virtue of life. Under capitalism, labor has a cash value.

[Flatulo]

69. Well, I have certainly learned a lot in this thread...

I want to thank you guys for not beating me up too badly, as I am obviously fresh meat here.

Some of you have made very good arguments that I had not heard before, and I will think about them long and hard. I can see that capitalism seems to have some self-destruct mechanisms built in, and technology and inovation just seem to push out the inevitable date when resources are exhausted.

On the other hand, I think it is indisputable that it has produced more goods for more people than any other system. The question is, has all this "stuff" really improved the qualty of life? I sure like some of my stuff, like my fridge full of tasty snacks and my 50,000 channels of DirecTV.

I guess I've always had Libertarian leanings - for example, I am vehemently opposed to the first use of force and hence American aggression in, oh, say, Iraq. I would have made a terrible Conquistador.

On the other hand, I've also felt that the European peoples got a predisposition to conquest and exploitation when the genetic dice were tossed. Is it fair to all the indigenous peoples we've destroyed? Nope, but if you believe Darwin, it may be our nature to conquer, rape and pillage.

Again, thanks for all the thoughtful replies.

[ToeBot]

70. Microsoft... That took less than a second. n/t

[KillCapitalism]

71. My take:

Capitalism is the greatest evil man has perpetrated on his fellow man. It rewards few and brings poverty and despair to many.

[Flatulo]

72. A different perspective...

"The theory of Communism was invented by a group of professional parasites in order to give the appearance of modernity and moral legitimacy to the stone-age practice of beating-up and killing productive people and taking their stuff."

- Author unknown

[Naturyl]

116. And the "parasite" term makes its appearence....

Wrong applied, as always. If anything, the true "parasites" are the NON-productive capitalist class, who get filthy rich off the labor of others in a massive economic pyramid scheme.

Welfare is only "wrong" when poor people get it.

[Flatulo]

121. Corporate welfare is definitely the suck. They should pay their

taxes just like we do.

However I do have respect for people who stake their personal possessions and very lives on trying to start a company. It is unbelievably difficult and the people I know who have ventured into a startup have worked hundred hour weeks for years to become successful. I would not call these guys parasites. If it weren't for these risk-takers, I would not have a job, and neither would most of us.

But they do have an obligation to pay their dues.

I am more against the corporate class of parasites who cruise from VP to VP positions every year or so and reap millions without breaking a bead of sweat. These guys are modern day pirates.

[Raskolnik]

76. What is your suggested alternative? n/t

[Flatulo]

87. I really don't want an alternative. I would be happy if we enforced our own laws better.

I personally *like* my lifestyle. I like having electricity and running water and a flush toilet. Some of the posts here seem to imply (to me at least) that these modernities are incompatible with long-term survival of our species. I do not believe this.

I have faith that technology will provide solutions to energy and resource shortages, and capital and access to markets will bring them to fruition.

We do need to adjust the tax code to encourage certain types of behaviors. Tax the shit out of SUVs and new homes that aren't energy efficent. Restructure taxation on capital gains. Full transpanency of corporate compensation.

We can fix what we have rather than throw it away and try things that have been proven to not work over and over again.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Capitalism concentrates too much power in too few hands.

It may be more "efficient" than socialism in a material sense but Lord Acton's axiom is not only true when it exists but is valued as an ideal.

[Raskolnik]

75. Its the absolute worst economic system imaginable.

Except for all the others.

[shance]

78. Seems to me that all the "ism" systems just keep most oppressed and a few very rich.

Including capitalism.

We've been duped.

Time to wake up and build community power and quit allowing the unknown entities who run the banks ruin so many lives.

[conspirator]

80. Unfortunately Capitalism is a NATURAL thing. The strong dominate the weak.

You can see that in all the animal kingdom. Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man and has always been here, it was called slavery and feudalism in the past. Now with globalization, capitalism is at its peak, where before we had several independent power pyramids, now we are quickly marching to a global pyramid a new world order. There are people who are still living near the slavery status, those are at the bottom of the pyramid, and then there are people in the industrialized countries who live in a wage slavery status, which is almost freedom.
I have an optimistic feeling about the future. I think capitalism will start to decline once globalization is complete, technology will be important in that process, unlimited sources of energy and nanotechnology will play a vital role in the end of wars for resources.

[treestar]

105. This is a good argument to use with right wingers

Because they hate and loathe anything merely suggesting any type of organization on a planetary level. The ones I know frothe at the mouth over the existence of the U.N., claiming it is the basis for "one world government," a thing they are sure is coming and sure is evil!

[slackmaster]

82. In Capitalism people dominate other people

In any other system, it's the other way around.

:popcorn:

[LanternWaste]

83. It's fundamentally based on Greed. nt

At its most fundamental level it's based on Greed.

[Flatulo]

86. Maybe greed is a Darwinian survival mechanism. eom.

[bleedingheart]

90. greed is not a survival mechanism

there is a big difference between trying to survive (need) and those who take because they want to excess (greed)...


Greed (avarice) is considered one of the seven deadly sins....it tears families apart, it ruins lives...

Ever know anyone who doesn't speak to their siblings because they fought over a meager $1500 inheritance...I have...and that kind of greed rots people from within...

[Jcrowley]

101. That's completely backwards and shaped by your cultural and social perceptions

Many of the negative trends we see are the result of our industrial culture, rather than of some natural, evolutionary force beyond our control. Without really thinking about it, many people assume that human beings are essentially selfish, struggling to compete and survive, and that more cooperative societies were nothing more than utopian dreams.

You are essentially a product of industrial society; educated with the sort of blinders that every culture employs in order to perpetuate itself. With values, and an understanding of history, and thought patterns all reflected in and by the world view of homo industrialis.

Mainstream Western thinkers from Adam Smith to Freud and today's academics tend to universalize what is in fact Western or industrial experience. Explicitly or implicitly, they assume that the traits they describe are a manifestation of human nature, rather than a product of industrial culture. This tendency to generalize from Western experience becomes almost inevitable as Western culture reaches out from Europe and North America to influence all the earth's people.

Every society tends to place itself at the center of the universe and to view other cultures through its own colored lenses. What distinguishes Western culture is that it has grown so widespread and so powerful that it has lost a perspective on itself; there is no "other" with which to compare itself. It is assumed that everyone either is like us or wants to be.

Most Westerners have come to believe that ignorance, disease, and constant drudgery were the lot of preindustrial societies, and the poverty, disease, and starvation we see in the developing world might at first sight seem to substantiate this assumption. The fact is, however, that many, if not most of the problems in the "Third World" today are to a great extent the consequences of colonialism and misguided development.

[Flatulo]

115. But what about Darwin?

Even if Western civilization has robbed and looted its way to industrialization and properity, can in not be that aggression and violence are valuable characteristic to have, in terms of getting your DNA into the next generation?

Getting your DNA scattered about is what seems to drive all life on this earth. The most successful at this tend to displace the less successful.

[LanternWaste]

149. That's not entirely accurate...

"The most successful at this tend to displace the less successful."

That's not entirely accurate. May I direct your attention to a little known concept call, "acculturation". I'm sure Wikipedia would offer you a fine starting point.

[LanternWaste]

147. I don't think ...

I don't think wanting the biggest and baddest SUV simply because your neighbor has one can be considered a survival mechanism.

[Flatulo]

153. No, but wanting more fertile land or a better fishing spot

to enrich one's own tribe would probably qualify. The more willing our ancestors were to employ violence to achieve the necessities of life, the more they were able to successfully get their DNA into the next generation.

I doubt very much they sat around and discussed the needs of the collective whole of mankind. They just fetched the old battle axes and went at it, women and children included.

Even though today most of us (hopefully) find violence abhorent, it violence was/is a useful evolutionary trait. Greed, or perhaps more appropriately, lust and envy, would serve as the trigger.

[Blue_Tires]

85. ttt nt

[Frank Cannon]

106. Capitalism is great. I love it.

You know, that whole ideal that if I design a better mousetrap and/or provide better customer service than the established Joe's House O' Mousetraps across the street, and then I reap the benefits when people come to buy my mousetraps instead of Joe's? I don't have a problem with any of that. That's the way life's meant to be.

Unfortunately, Joe's House O' Mousetraps has been bought by a HEAVILY-funded international megacorporation that also owns a substantial share of the US media and provides millions of dollars in "donations" to people in political office or candidates for office. Kinda hard for Frank Cannon Mousetraps to work against that kind of leverage.

We don't have capitalism in this country. It's corporatism.

[Raksha]

129. Does "building a better mousetrap" count as capitalism, though?

I think that's better classified as entrepreneurship, when you build a better mousetrap and you want to manufacture and sell it.

No problem, except that Joe's House o'Mousetraps International is not only heavily funded, but also has the clout to have your mousetrap ruled unsafe by their pet government agency. (I can't think offhand what the relevant agency would be.) And they talk about "free enterprise" and a "free market"? What a damn joke!

People tend to confuse entrepreneurship with capitalism, but they are NOT the same thing whatsoever. Global capitalism actually kills entrepreneurship in many cases.

[conspirator]

137. rec

[Crandor]

107. That "Myths That Keep The World Poor" title would have worked better for this article.

Every country that tries "alternatives" to capitalism either becomes a totalitarian dictatorship, ends up poorer than it was before, or both. If you want to go to North Korea, fine with me, but personally I happen to enjoy not starving in a gulag.

[Jcrowley]

109. A necessary education

Your ignoring pretty much all of the last thousand years of history but I guess that's okay.

Listen here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6573660441809242121

[Naturyl]

117. Try Sweden

Or large portions of Europe, for that matter. Technically, it's still capitalism, but even most Democrats in America would call it "socialist."

And guess what? They have the best quality of life on Earth.

[Flatulo]

119. Don't they have one of the highest suicide rates?

Not implying any correlation... maybe it's the long days or something.

They're also a far more homogenous population than we are.

They make damn fine cars, at least they did until GM took them over.

[NoGOPZone]

166. They do not.

Where did you get that idea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_rates_by_country

[Flatulo]

171. Thank you, I stand corrected. It's interesting that the top rates...

... are in former Soviet bloc nations that are struggling to transiton from a centrally managed to a market economy.

Also intersting is Japan. Lots of cultural pressure there to succeed I imagine.

[NoGOPZone]

173. That's one way to interpret the data

but it doesn't explain the lower rates in other former bloc countries such as Uzbekistan, Aremenia and Georgia, among others.

[LanternWaste]

151. Wow! Not much of a student of history, are you?

Wow! Not much of a student of history, are you? Or of the world?

Might I suggest, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy... very enlightening stuff.

[Javaman]

120. My explanation is alot faster...

I'm broke and the rich aren't. I keep getting less for my buck and they keep getting more.

[Matsubara]

128. K., too late to R.

I would like to add my voice to those asking why this poster was tombstoned...

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorGAC]

144. Yeah. Really!

I read this whole thread and didn't see the behavior that should have resulted in that.
GAC

[WiseButAngrySara]

145. Quite peculiar. ....n/t

[Nederland]

162. Perhaps it was another thread

Who knows, but I'd like to.

[Sapphire Blue]

167. ??? !!!

:wtf:

[WiseButAngrySara]

139. Kick! ....n/t

[mark414]

150. the case against capitalism in one link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

[gravity]

152. Capitalism works

I haven't seen any other economics system that works as good as capitalism.

Poverty exists everywhere, and always has. It isn't a capitalist creation. Humans evolved on this earth with nothing, and never knew where their next meal is going to come from. Many people starved to death, which was the reason the population remained constant for so long. To state it bluntly, life is cruel.

Capitalism allows people to escape poverty giving us the modern standard of living we have today. If you don't like it, then move to a country that doesn't have capitalism, and see if you would like it better there.

[Selatius]

199. It doesn't work if there are no free markets and lack of resources.

Many markets in the US, unsurprisingly, have very little to almost no competition occuring whatsoever. The US government, if there is a role for it, is to ensure free markets, but many of the same monopolists who dominate the markets also dominate Capitol Hill. What you have is more akin to fascism where corporations control government.

I believe in free markets. I just don't believe people have an unlimited right to accumulate vast amounts of capital at the expense of everybody else's economic and political freedom.

[Flatulo]

156. Excuse me, but what is "tombstoning"? eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. When someobdy is banned

their profile has a cute toombstone

[Flatulo]

160. Oh, thanks.

I wonder what breach was committed? I didn't anything in this thread that I found offensive...

[joshcryer]

176. Was Jcrowley banned because of this thread or something else?

I'd hate to partipicate in a thread talking about capitalism if it is tombstoneworthy.

[Nederland]

163. Capitalism is not a system based on the idea of unlimited growth

It is a system based upon the idea of property rights. Unlimited growth is neither the result nor basis of a Capitalist system.

[JohnF]

165. Whether theoretically so or not, it has become so in practice

We see the constant pursuit of growth-growth-growth, and any hint of a lack of growth is taken as a terrible sign, requiring adjustments to get growth back on track. Free marketeers have long been the main promoters of population growth (e.g., Julian Simon), as well, seeing it as necessary not only for increased demand, but now to preserve poverty and cheap labor for their globalization scheme.

Unlimited growth may not be built into the theory of capitalism, but capitalists have fairly universally decided they need it. So I would disagree that it's not a result of capitalism. It clearly seems to have become one result.

[Nederland]

172. Perhaps I wasn't clear

Yes, it is true that if growth stalls or even reverses, capitalists will be unhappy. However, it is a far cry from saying that to saying that capitalism requires growth. I could give a shit if the investor class is unhappy. The survival of the capitalist system is not dependent on the investor class being happy, it is dependent on government enforcing property rights.

[JohnF]

174. Theory vs practice

Many definitions of capitalism do not contain references to growth. But many do refer to maximizing profits:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=11285&dict=CALD

It's not a big stretch from that to a requirement of growth. And many do believe capitalism depends, or has come to depend on growth. A random example:

"Indeed, capitalism depends on growth, since only through growth can profits be assured and
continuous accumulation of capital take place. (Miller & Rose, 1990, p. 329)"

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/sarahell/thesislit.pdf

That said, I think what some in this thread, as well as the piece in linked to in the original post are really concerned with is not the definition or the theory, but what happens in reality. In practice, most will agree capitalism has embraced an imperative for constant growth to the extent that it's become the primary focus. It seems to have come to depend on growth.

So the argument might be that while, by some definitions, capitalism doesn't require growth, in practice it does.

[Flatulo]

178. A lot of businesses do very nicely without growth, if their model is good

I worked for a company that manufactured digital tape cartridges for storage backup devices. The company never grew after Y2K madness passed, but they had a nice little revenue stream from all the tape cartridges that needed to be replaced daily/monthly/yearly.

It was kind of like selling batteries - they all gotta be replaced sooner or later.

[JohnF]

179. I agree it can be done

...especially on smaller scales. But I think the references to capitalism and growth tend to focus on the economy as a whole or perhaps also on larger corporations.

I don't think growth has to be necessary; it just seems to have become the obsession.

[Flatulo]

180. In a way we all share the responsibility for the obsession with growth.

Many of us have 401K plans as our sole retirement vehicle. We expect these plan managers to produce steady, consistent growth. Those managers that cannot grow the fund share value get fired and replaced with managers who can.

The price we pay for this is a disconnect between us (the investor) and the company whose stock is included in the portfolio. If the only measurable criteria is growth, we lose control over how to fine tune the company's behaviors.

If a company's stock underferforms, they get kicked out of the fund, so the management of the company makes quarter-to-quarter decisions that will boost the share price but may NOT be sound decisions for the long-term survival of the company.

[JohnF]

184. Good point

The whole question of growth gets complicated, and your point about a company's management and pressure to increase its stock price is an example.

It does seem capitalism, or some variant of it, should be able to function without the need for constant growth. Still, writers like Herman daly make a good case that our standard economic model (neoclassical economics) is out of sync with the ecosystem, and needing to be replaced by another model. The idea of the "steady state economy," a direct response to the usual push for growth, is one alternative. I have only a limited knowledge of it, but would be interested to hear your thoughts or those of anyone who's investigated it. Link to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy:

http://www.steadystate.org/

[joshcryer]

186. It is actually, and we can see areas where capitalism "limits growth."

Consider DRM whereby growth is "limited" in the media sphere. We can see such things other industries like with logging or farming industries that are highly subsidized to prevent growth in other areas (for the profit of local interests). Capitalism by its nature has to limit its own growth otherwise it will reach equllibrium with the markets and it will no longer be a driving force.

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nam78_two]

182. I have read and recommended almost all of JCrowley's posts when I caught them in time

I have never seen him post anything even remotely trollish. I hate to make a fuss, but I would really like to know why such a valuable and unfailingly polite poster is considered a disruptor?

Can people just be banned for having what are considered "far-left" views :shrug:?
How is one to know what code of conduct to adhere to if polite, non-trollish posters are banned? This is very confusing....

[joshcryer]

187. I don't understand it either. Is there a place we can talk to someone about this?

I wouldn't want to stir up anything in this thread, but I do wonder if it was this thread or another thread that caused them to be tombstoned. I would rather not discuss it here though because then that may cause a valuable thread with interesting points of view to be locked for questioning moderator authority.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

197. I responded to this- read post 196.

:hi:

[slampoet]

192. Making a fuss seems to get more posts deleted than any actual content.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

196. You have nothing to worry about.

Provided that you have read the rules for posting here, and abide by them.

Along that vein, you may want to keep in mind that while someone may post wonderful articles on the boards, There are many other facets of an online community- and unfortunately, when one does not adhere to community standards, and/or the rules that they knowingly agreed to by signing up to post here, they may, in fact, lose their privilege to remain a part of said community.

It's unfortunate when it happens. Don't worry about posting something... And certainly don't fear that the same thing will happen to your account due to posts similar in tone or content to the former member JCrowley.

If you're still nervous, just take a look at the rules again. Adhering to the rules and community standards set up by the DU administrators for this site is a good way to make sure that you'll be around for a long time!

[ncrainbowgrrl]

198. I responded to this- read post 196.

:hi:

In the future, if you have questions like this, please don't pose them in the middle of a thread. In fact, the best way to get an answer to any and all questions related to DU policy is to contact the administrators of the site! http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html

[WillyT]

189. Greed Sucks !!!

And greedy people suck most of all!!!

Less than 5 minutes, Ithink!

:shrug:

[Czolgosz]

190. Surely when posters can use falsehoods to trash good Democratic candidates with impunity, one can't

get tombstoned for a dispassionate and levelheaded discussion of economic models.

[nam78_two]

193. ...

I don't get it :shrug:.