There is an Alternative to Capitalism

[Apone]

Norway and it's $53,471 GDP per capita says "Hi."

I don't think that Norway is truly socialist.

 

[88chaz88]

I don't think that Norway is truly socialist.

I don't think the U.S. is truly capitalistic but both swing in one direction a lot more than they do another.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

The purchasing power of money is going down because we are in a deflationary spiral

Rather than me trying inadequatly to explain that perhaps you can look into it yourself?

Also wages have stagnated and more people are being driven out of work or into part time work because the money has been sucked out of the system to pay the global creditors

We all live in the realeconomy of production and consumption but the bankers don't produce anything they simply extract interest from the real economy. When the banks failed, instead of our governments saying 'look guys you've fucked up here you are just going to have to say to your creditors (the global investors....and i'm talking here about billionaire and trillionaire people and families) that you can't pay them and they will simply have to right off the debt (like they have been doing since ancient sumeria)

This would have allowed the real economy to keep going; but the governments didn't do this. Instead they chose to take money from the real economy (taxpayer money) in the form of 'bank bailouts' and they gave it to the bankers to give to the global creditors

This has meant that there is less money for us and that the debt between the bankers and creditors has been passed onto us and our children and our childrens children etc

The central banks have printed more and more money (quantitative easing) and as every school boy/girl knows if you print more money then it has an inflationary effect of devaluing the money in circulation

Combined with this they have kept interest rates low because they argue that if rates are low then people who are trying to save money will realise that their wealth in the bank is simply beinf eaten up by inflation and is actually decreasing NOT increasing and will start to spend money again and boost the economy.

Low interest rates are however good for the global speculators.

So think about what all this means

What it means is that despite the vast majority of people working everyday and paying their bills and taxes and if they're doing very well managing to put some money aside as savings a small number of bankers have been taking peoples money and gambling with it until it all dissapeared

But money doesn't just dissapear it simply changes hands

So what we have seen is a transferral of money from hardworking taxpayers who were just playing by the rules into the hands of bankers and global speculators who have been getting upto all sorts of fraudulent behaviours

The honest tax payer can't keep money safe in the bank, their pension funds are raided by the bankers, their house values are dropping, and they are now being made to pay for the bankers behaviour in cuts to public spending (austerity) which causes a lowering of the quality of life

Think about that for a minute.

The politicians have chosen to give vast amounts of money to a small number of people leaving life much tougher for millions.....now why would they do that? Two reasons....one is that they are bought and paid for by the super rich few and two because they have a grand plan

The grand plan is to create a new economic system and they see the hardhsip of the people as simply some eggs that must be cracked in order to make a big new omellete

The people understandably are not happy about losing public services, their savings, their homes, their jobs, the purchasing power of their money, their civil liberties (due to changes in the law) especially while they are watching the bankers who have created this situation getting massive bonuses and the global creditors getting payed billions in bailouts and then using that money to buy up 'privatised' national assets which governments are selling at reduced rates in 'firesales'

It is not a case of 'entitlement'....it is a case of law abiding, hard working people wanting their governemnts not to sell the rug out from underneath them to a small bunch of greedy, power hungry global sheisters

So how do they get away with this? Its simple they keep the public working hard and they keep them missinformed

Bankers have been put into positions of power in European governments to replace democratically elected politicians. they have called these people 'technocrats' but that is short hand for 'bankers'. Techionocrats have been put in charge of countries to manage a transition to a new world....a brave new world....where the global creditors will own everything and you will be their fuedal vassal

It was all put pretty eloquently in the 1976 film 'network':



[video=youtube;jxiT30N6ti4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxiT30N6ti4[/video]
That is why there is so much protest, because some people don't want to roll the clock back to fuedalism

Ohhh jeeez. Dude purchasing power increases during deflation. Also printing money doesn't devalue a currency if banks aren't lending.

 

[Nixie]

But there isn't deflation. Increasing gas prices are forcing inflation into the system which messes up consumer spending and investment. Both of which are vital components of a healthy economy. There is no impetuous to save because more of your purchasing power is being eaten up to pay for the increased price of things that require shipping--mainly food. There has been a marked increase in food costs directly resulting from increased gas prices. Manufacturers are combating higher costs by keeping prices somewhat stable but cutting the size/portion of an item. For example, Peanut butter used to be sold in 12oz jars and now they are 10oz jars.

Plus the increased spending in food stuffs has a double whammy of reducing the purchase of durable goods. When the cycle started, there was a surplus in the system and you saw huge sales on such things like washers and dryers--now those industries have probably slashed production. Prices will stabilize at a higher amount as supply/demand fluctations even out. But it means more people are out of work in the manufacturing industries because people are not purchasing durable goods--their money is being used to feed their families.

So, if you print money at the same time that outside forces are causing an inflationary rises in prices--you devalue your currency which causes more inflation. It is a ugly cycle. So they should be tightening up the loan market but an already depressed housing market would become even shakier. A bad housing market causes consumer confidence to decline further and the investment arm takes another hit. So even if people wanted to invest money they wouldn't because the market is too unstable. Many economies are very vulnerable and volitile right now.

I advocate for works programs. Get people rebuilding in the rural areas to alleviate urban sprawl. Fund massive initiatives to tear down and rebuild decaying houses--make them more environmentally friendly with good insulation and alternative energy built in. Stuff like windmills and solar panels. You stop the rush to the urban centers which helps reduce crime and such and boost smaller local economies in the heartland which will strengthen the overall economy.

Stop bailing out massive farming groups. Focus your energy on supporing a network of small growers and create localized produce/meat co-ops to build more eco friendly operations across the country. The ability to eliminate the chemical preservatives would have health benefits. I would also advocate for a food stamp like program for fresh fruit and produce. Preference to be given to local growers for purchasing. Sort of like the WIC program. Enable people to afford to eat healthy and jumpstart the ability of creating these smaller farming networks across the country.

Stop giving huge tax breaks to big corporations. Especially if they don't offer health care and hire teenagers. Tighten up the job market by making it harder for teenagers to work. Penalize companies who hire a certain percentage of teenage workers so it makes better sense to hire someone who has a family to support. If you tighten up the job market then you reduce the need for unemployment benefits and such. That way those companies that want to hire people who don't need health insurance or don't have to support a family-- pay more in taxes to cover the adult worker who is out of a job.

 

[j654dgj7]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-03-06-denmark-usat_N.htm

"They have a big welfare state, which provides free public health care, education, child care and job training on top of generous unemployment benefits."

"the Danes enjoy steady economic growth, the lowest jobless rate on the continent, a budget surplus and shrinking government debt. And they work 37 hours a week."

"Denmark defies much conventional wisdom that you cannot have jobs, growth and sound government finances while imposing high taxes and running a big welfare state. It's done it through what the Danes call "flexicurity," a hybrid of free labor markets, unfettered business and adjusting welfare to give incentives for people to work so they can pay taxes to finance the benefits they get."

Same is done in Sweden and Norway. We have economic growth, the most happy populations in the world, and a wealthier average family than America. We too have huge boners for capitalism, but we just limit it in certain areas of society, like education and health care. That way most people get a very good education, the social heritage of poor decisions are broken, and no one dies in the streets because they don't have insurance. I'd say it's a win-win Johnny Keynes was a wise man.

 

[slant]

BTW the USA is not a capitalistic market.


USA is a socialistic republic. It's not quite socialist enough to be pure socialism, it's more capitalistic than socialistic, but you cannot call USA pure capitalism. It is not.

 

[j654dgj7]

BTW the USA is not a capitalistic market.


USA is a socialistic republic. It's not quite socialist enough to be pure socialism, it's more capitalistic than socialistic, but you cannot call USA pure capitalism. It is not.

Encyclopædia Britannica defines socialism as: "Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy". Would you describe America as a socialist country after reading that? If yes: why?

 

[Nixie]

I think it is a veiled reference to the idea that big tax breaks and other benefits are given to huge corporations. One quote I heard before went something like it is socialism for the wealthy and cutthroat capitalism for the poor in the US. Huge corporations are given considerable legal leeway in the US inasmuch as they are treated as a real live person under legal statues.

 

[elect locution]

Not that this is related, but I do think it's interesting how you really didn't hear about how much capitalism sucks when we weren't in a recession.
It makes me think that people just hate recessions, but don't want to sound redundant.

I don't think that anyone would argue that socialism can work on a local level… as a novelty, or among friends, it's doable. But I can't imagine an entire nation, or an entire world held together like that. There have always been imbalances of power and wealth in successful civilizations, and probably always will be… unless you want to return to the jungles and live a simple life among a small population of villagers/nomads, it's going to happen.

The capitalism of today is not the capitalism of years past. Idealized capitalism involves fair competition among many businesses so that the best goods are delivered at the lowest price. However, today's capitalism is perverted by concentration of power into monopolies (just a few dozen corporations) that control the majority of the world's economy and, with their power, also influence governments.

Our governments were supposed to maintain strong antitrust policies to prevent this perversion of capitalism we have today, but somewhere along the line the politicians decided it would be preferable (more advantageous) to allow amalgamations of corporate power (and receive kick-backs in return be it in the form of campaign support now directly possible through PACs or in a seven-figure job after the politician leaves congress [read up on ever prevalent "revolving door politics"]).

 

[elect locution]

No man thats not correct, look at the zapatistas they are dirt poor but they are living by an alternative system to capitalism

What they are reacting again st and speaking out against is neoliberalism which is funnuling the wealth upwards to the hands of the few super rich. The people in the majority world have been worst affected by this and now it is affecting us in the 'western' world as well

What we can't afford is inequality on the scale we have it....idealism doesn't need to come into it this is about being practical

Just because there are people who exist outside of the system doesn't mean that they can compete with the current players in the system. The Zapatistas being so poor is evidence of their inability to compete. They can survive, but they can not compete. The system has to fall before these fringe organizations and ways of life can rise.

Again, opting out is not the same as competing. The Zapatistas, sustainable communities, etc. have opted out of the system. Although they are ideologically in the right, they are not competitive.

 

[slant]

Encyclopædia Britannica defines socialism as: "Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy". Would you describe America as a socialist country after reading that? If yes: why?

Yes, America is not pure capitalism because of social welfare programs. Socialism is actually defined by there being more public wealth and less private wealth; that is so socialism. Communism is all public wealth, Capitalism is all/a lot of private wealth and little to no public wealth. We are more socialistic than capitalistic because there are a shit ton of public wealth systems. However, we're not completely socialist, I would say that if you have 'rings' on a ladder we'd be one ring below capitalism and two rings from socialism.

 

[muir]

Ohhh jeeez. Dude purchasing power increases during deflation. Also printing money doesn't devalue a currency if banks aren't lending.

I think you've misunderstood me here man....

I said it is a 'deflationary spiral' not just 'deflation'.......please look into 'deflationary spirals' if you're interested. Some argue that the great depression was an example of a deflationary spiral

The central banks are pumping money into the system to try and combat the deflationary spiral

There are different schools of thought on this but the prevailing system if you like is neoliberalism and the supporters of that will be able to wheel out their economists to say how great it is and its detractors will wheel out theirs to counter argue that

But really if you want a good weather report all you have to do is look out of the window

 

[muir]

Just because there are people who exist outside of the system doesn't mean that they can compete with the current players in the system. The Zapatistas being so poor is evidence of their inability to compete. They can survive, but they can not compete. The system has to fall before these fringe organizations and ways of life can rise.

Again, opting out is not the same as competing. The Zapatistas, sustainable communities, etc. have opted out of the system. Although they are ideologically in the right, they are not competitive.

I've read your other posts in this thread and i agree with a lot of what you are saying here

What we have at the moment is not 'free market' capitalism because as you say there are monopolies who are influencing government

We have a banking scandal breaking here in the UK at the moment (yes another one!) where banks have been found to be manipulating the LIBOR (London Inter-Bank Offered Rate) which is the interest that banks charge to borrow from each other

The corruption and fraud is, as i'm sure you're aware (from what you've been saying here), systemic

But anyway back to the zapatistas....its not so much that they're trying to 'compete'....they're not, they simply shrugged off the dictatorial control of the government so that they could run their communities within the spirit of anarchist-communism. They are aware that the wider policy followed by certain countries known as 'the washington consensus' or neoliberalism is basically a method of funneling the wealth of society upwards away from the majority of people and into the hands of the few at the top

I regularly get called a 'conspiracy theorist' on this forum for saying that there is an agenda at the top to grab all the wealth and assets of the world....but the figures speak for themselves. The figures tell us that the wealth is largely and increasingly concentrated at the top and that the gap between the top and the rest of us is widening

I see it as a tsunami of poverty (as the money recedes upwards in front of it). Humanity is standing on the beach. The wealthier you are the higher your are on the beach. The wave has come and has swamped people in the majority world imposing harsh living conditions and draconian work conditions on them and it has now swamped people in the western world as we see job losses, home losses and cuts to public services and next the wave is going to swamp the 'middle class'

This is going to come as a real shock to the middle class because they always felt they had a tacit agreement with the government that if they paid their taxes and worked hard then they would get their mortgage, their family car, two or three holidays a year and their kids through college but all that is going to dissapear

When it does things will get interesting because the two party system will come under threat. As we both know both parties are in the pocket of the corporate monopolies so the disgruntled middle class who will increasingly feel betrayed will vote for parties outwith the two parties

In the UK we are already seeing this. There has been a rise in nationalist parties which are basically callling for the break up of the UK for example the Scots have already given up on the two party system and have voted for the Scottish Nationalist Party that is now in government here. Even in England they have split the vote to such a degree that a coalition government had to be formed

So things are beginning to be shaken up here and on the continent more radical parties are gaining traction

So inevitably the monopolies are going to have to find new ways to maintain power. They are doing this with new laws that infringe on peoples civil liberites and they are trying to control the internet increasingly but basically the main thrust of what they are doing is buying up all the nations assets

If the monoplies own the land, the buildings the goods and services, the police (they're privatising the police!!!!), the hospitals (they're trying to break up our national health service!!!), the forests (they tried to selll off all the forests but this was cut a bit after a massive public outcry), the post service (privatised and more private firms like UBS brought in....their vans are everywhere now), the tunnels, roads (new toll roads being made), and bridges, the utilites (such as water and electricity) etc etc etc then they will basically create a 'toll booth' economy where we must all pay the prices that they dictate to use all these things.

Imagine if someone disagreed with the corporations for example over a human rights issue....they would just be cut out of the corporate world and couldn't use transport, the internet, buy food, get water or gas or electricity, by fuel etc etc

Just look at how the corporations rallied against wikileaks cutting off the means to fund it for example vias and paypal

All this stuff is actually happening but if you just give it a name people start calling you 'paranoid' or a 'conspiracy theorist'!

So really we do have to push the alternatives and drop out like the zapatistas where we can for example people can take their money out of the banks (to de-collatoralise them) and put them into community credit unions instead....that's a pretty good way to cast a vote of no confidence against the corporatocracy

Some argue there are two approaches: 'dual power' and 'lifestylism'.

So lifestylism might be changing the way you live for example buying organic or growing your own, being more self susfficient and not giving money to the corporations....this is very difficult when they have such a monopoly on things

Dual power is creating new systems in the shell of the old. For example taking direct action such as occupying unoccupied corporate buildings and turning them over to the community, someone posted (i think it was @Peppermint ) something about mesh internet so that we wouldn't be dependant on servers in the US (and then subject to control or CIA spying), creating new ways to work and live for example voluntary associations of workers, peoples assemblies etc

As for the competition situation.....i think to stop the process currently occuring requires a raising of awareness and groups like the zapatistas do that very well (eg i went to a zapatista fund raising gig) so that people can see past the lies put to them in the media created by the monopolies and can see what is really going on and how the ground is being sold from underneath them to the elite

I guess the next step is mass organisation which means a linking up of like minded groups around the world and they are for example: the World Social Forum

One thing i can't understand is why groups don't coordinate their strikes when carrying out industrial action.....perhaps its because they are fighting over scraps instead of trying to change the actual system

I think awareness is growing and the corporatocracy is going to have to move fast to implement its plans. I think we will see them put forward some solution to the current economic crisis for example a new centrally controlled currency probably issued by the IMF

So the question is will the system fall or is it going to morph? Either way i think that it should be increasingly clear to people that the corporations run things and that if we're not happy about that state of affairs then the people are going to have to take steps to change the system themselves

A spokesman for the Zapatistas discussing their war against neoliberalism:

[video=youtube;5OTy3aLBSMw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OTy3aLBSMw[/video]

 

[muir]

BTW the USA is not a capitalistic market.


USA is a socialistic republic. It's not quite socialist enough to be pure socialism, it's more capitalistic than socialistic, but you cannot call USA pure capitalism. It is not.

The US is a capitalist country. It is not a 'free market' economy but it is capitalist. To be more specific it is 'state capitalist'

Socialism is when the workers control the means of production and you do not have that in the US

What you do have is the US corporate media saying that any expansion of the government is 'socialist' because this hides the alternative of true socialism from the public in an act of Orwellian doublethink

You are not a socialist country

Please listen to this famous US socialist explain how the word 'socialism' has been missused and at 0.55 he says what the traditional definition of socialism is. He is a professor of lingustics whose works have changed the field he works in and he has been a social activist for over half a century.....in short....he knows what he is talking about:

[video=youtube;K4Tq4VE8eHQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ[/video]

 

[Kryptonite]

I regularly get called a 'conspiracy theorist' on this forum for saying that there is an agenda at the top to grab all the wealth and assets of the world....but the figures speak for themselves. The figures tell us that the wealth is largely and increasingly concentrated at the top and that the gap between the top and the rest of us is widening

Precisely, I agree there is an agenda at the top to attempt acquire all of the resources and wealth in the world. The answer to this problem is not socialism or communism, these are simply scams to get the poor and powerless to be content with their destitution. For a recent relevant example, what we have going on in the united states with this healthcare law is the death sentence for the middle class while the richer get richer. The 1% are not paying for this healthcare bill, it is the middle class! The middle class will bear the burden of paying higher premiums to fund obamacare, over time this will merge the middle class with the poor until you have a society with a vast majority of the population living in relative equality, with a low standard of living while a minuscule portion of the population acts as the overloads hoarding all of the wealth. Capitalism is used as the means to acquire the wealth, and socialism/communism/etc is used to pacify the impoverished masses, both end up victimizing people depriving people of their natural and economic rights. I am a believer in economic nationalism as the solution to these problems, where individual countries shun the influence of international financiers who constantly play the role of the vampire sucking the blood of each nation's economy, and they travel from nation to nation owing allegiance to none victimizing the people therein forcing the very leaders of these countries to answer to bankers and not their people or the law.

In the UK we are already seeing this. There has been a rise in nationalist parties which are basically callling for the break up of the UK for example the Scots have already given up on the two party system and have voted for the Scottish Nationalist Party that is now in government here. Even in England they have split the vote to such a degree that a coalition government had to be formed

I know people fear nationalist movements, but they may be the only answer to getting rid of the financial cancer that exists in the western world. Nationalism only becomes a problem when it turns into supremacism and imperialism.

 

[elect locution]

So inevitably the monopolies are going to have to find new ways to maintain power. They are doing this with new laws that infringe on peoples civil liberites and they are trying to control the internet increasingly but basically the main thrust of what they are doing is buying up all the nations assets

Haha, we have pretty much the same concept of the way things are then. Money is power in this day and age and power begets power. Who has money? Well with rising income inequality in the United States, the rich have more money--thus they have more power--and as I said, power begets power in our system so things will get worse before they get better I believe. I'm not surprised that the same thing is happening in the UK.

Expect no redeeming events from the global theater for it has become a macabre tale of cannibalism entering its final act. Yet fear not, for Hope remains—just not in the politicians, corporations, or the system. Hope remains in you, in me, in our families, in our friends. The future is grim and we have much to fear, but there will always be Hope. ~my blog

 

[elect locution]

Precisely, I agree there is an agenda at the top to attempt acquire all of the resources and wealth in the world. The answer to this problem is not socialism or communism, these are simply scams to get the poor and powerless to be content with their destitution. For a recent relevant example, what we have going on in the united states with this healthcare law is the death sentence for the middle class while the richer get richer. The 1% are not paying for this healthcare bill, it is the middle class! The middle class will bear the burden of paying higher premiums to fund obamacare, over time this will merge the middle class with the poor until you have a society with a vast majority of the population living in relative equality, with a low standard of living while a minuscule portion of the population acts as the overloads hoarding all of the wealth. Capitalism is used as the means to acquire the wealth, and socialism/communism/etc is used to pacify the impoverished masses, both end up victimizing people depriving people of their natural and economic rights. I am a believer in economic nationalism as the solution to these problems, where individual countries shun the influence of international financiers who constantly play the role of the vampire sucking the blood of each nation's economy, and they travel from nation to nation owing allegiance to none victimizing the people therein forcing the very leaders of these countries to answer to bankers and not their people or the law.





I know people fear nationalist movements, but they may be the only answer to getting rid of the financial cancer that exists in the western world. Nationalism only becomes a problem when it turns into supremacism and imperialism.

I don't believe in an "agenda" per se. I see what is happening as the inevitable result of a matured human construct--the corporation--and corporations are just doing their job; doing what they do best.

Corporations are more powerful than governments are now. Their power will only beget them more power. For the time being, there are still several dozen truly competitive corporations in the global game of power—WalMart, the oil giants, ING financial, Koch Industries, etc. However, just as millions have consolidated into hundreds and hundreds into dozens, the dozens will consolidate into a handful. This handful will be powerful in a way humanity has never seen.

Empires have a rise, a golden age, and a decline. Just like empires, corporations have a life course—one that we are not familiar with because we have never seen their end. Thus far, what we have seen is:

Genesis: A corporation is created by a group of investors who pool their assets to share the risk of a novel and potentially profitable venture.
Self-sufficiency: A corporation lays claim to a resource or develops a product that becomes an “essential” in the corporation’s market (see: lumber, oil, bananas, radios, televisions, and iPads). In providing or developing a product that the people will always buy (an essential), a corporation matures beyond risk-sharing. It becomes self-sufficient.
Monopoly: A corporation’s existence is threatened by competing corporations. It is in the corporation’s best interest to eradicate all its competitors. Any arguments appealing to abstract virtues (like free market competition) are null before the corporation’s need ensure its survival.
Symbiosis: Governments hold the power to disrupt corporate accumulation of power. However, government is an entity of its own with its own needs and ambitions. It partners with the corporations to the advantage of the governing parties (i.e. Democrats and Republicans). This symbiosis improves the security, power, and wealth of both government and corporations. This symbiosis is a gradual process. It begins with small deals facilitated by lobbyists and ends with overt partnership—such as that seen in today’s corporate-political-media complex. See: Revolving door, iron triangle, and captured agencies.
Power Accumulation: As the symbiosis matures, power increases. The developing symbiote realizes its potential. It exercises its power to further ensure its power, to expand its power, and to benefit its members. The Citizens United decision is an overt example of the symbiote’s use of power. The corporations make a bid for power, the government grants the bid, and the media plays the deal down. However, the vast majority of the symbiote’s uses of power are much more insidious than these. An example of “insidious” power use is the military-industrial complex.
Conquest: The symbiote does not yet have absolute power over the people. The people are still somewhat conscious and cry out against corporate governance. They make petty appeals to “freedom” and “democracy.” Fortunately, they are too many and of too many minds. They are easily divided.
The most interesting part is that there is no person or group in control of the symbiote’s rise. Today’s corporate power complexes are the result of centuries of growth, development, and mergers—driven steadily by business economics, population dynamics, and human nature. ~again, my blog

 

[muir]

@Kryptonite

I enjoyed your post!

I'm guessing you'd like to see genuine 'free market' capitalism rather than state capitalism?

I agree with your diagnosis of the problem. But i don't see a happy outcome emerging from 'free market' capitalism either. I think we'd be trading one form of tyranny for another

i think the only way to protect ourselves from the corruption and oppression that always comes from centralised power is to de-centralise power back down to the people so that people manage their own communities and control the means of production (held in common ownership)

This also would require that the individual is free from coercion
@elect locution

I really enjoyed your post as well and agree with your idea of the evolution of corporate power (perhaps devolution or whatever the opposite of evolution is would be a more appropriate word!)

The only place we seem to deviate is whether or not there is a coherent agenda

What are your thoughts on groups like: the bilderburg club, the club of rome, the council on foreign relations (and its sister organisation in the UK: Chatham House), G20, world economic forum (Davos) which all act as forums for the corporate elite through which they coordinate policy?

 

[Kryptonite]

I enjoyed your post!

I'm guessing you'd like to see genuine 'free market' capitalism rather than state capitalism?

Oh no, I dislike capitalism all together as a just economic philosophy. Obviously capitalism is great at what it does, producing and creating the middle class, but life is about more than production. Unlike most capitalists, I believe government can be a helper for pressing problems when used appropriately and strategically, I think the cliché of "government is not the answer, government is the problem" is so absurd, and operates from the erroneous mindset that human beings have an altruistic nature, and will simply act in goodwill by nature. I think human nature is just the opposite, and that is why we need government and community to self reflect and solve common problems.

TBH, I despise the libertarian economic philosophy almost as much as I despise advocates of socialist utopias or communism. Both end up treating people like beasts in my opinion, one side advocates for a de facto social darwinist society where the strong thrive and the weak just have to deal with it, and the other treats human beings like animals in a petting zoo. I believe in a society that uses the government as a means of securing basic economic rights so that the poor don't remain so for generations, but on the other hand I don't believe in a society of equal outcome. Government should be there to secure and protect basic natural rights including civil and economic rights, after this people should be free to succeed as they their hard work and talents get them. They shouldn't be punished for it, but at the same time I believe in progressive taxation because flat percentage taxes almost always negatively effect the poor more than the rich. I don't see this as punishment, I see this as ensuring everyone bears a burden of comparable weight. There's a lot more to what I believe that goes against the typical capitalist talking points, but I won't ramble on.

I agree with your diagnosis of the problem. But i don't see a happy outcome emerging from 'free market' capitalism either. I think we'd be trading one form of tyranny for another

Yeah exactly, the way I see it free market capitalism is simply an avenue to economic tyranny. This is really the story of civilization, you need to follow the money to really find out where the power is and where the decisions are being made. It sounds great in this idealized world where people are kind and fair, but that is not the world we live in, the love of wealth is what drives people more than anything and it will drive people to ruin the lives of millions of people for the sake of satisfying their own greed which can never really be satisfied. If you want to learn real history, you need to follow the money, it is amazing to find out what goes on behind the scenes.

i think the only way to protect ourselves from the corruption and oppression that always comes from centralised power is to de-centralise power back down to the people so that people manage their own communities and control the means of production (held in common ownership)

I sort of agree with this, I think we need to return to a mindset that values economic security more than economic growth. We need to stop interconnecting the economies of the world to the point where there is no escape from economic disaster. I favor a more isolationist economic view where the economic goal for each country is sufficiency, not simply economic growth. Economic growth cannot happen indefinitely, and if you attempt to make it so, it will require victimization of other people. I don't mean isolationist where there is no trade, but isolationist in the sense that you do not compromise economic security and self sufficiency for profit by connecting yourself so solidly to another country's economy.

 

[Saru Inc]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-03-06-denmark-usat_N.htm

"They have a big welfare state, which provides free public health care, education, child care and job training on top of generous unemployment benefits."

"the Danes enjoy steady economic growth, the lowest jobless rate on the continent, a budget surplus and shrinking government debt. And they work 37 hours a week."

"Denmark defies much conventional wisdom that you cannot have jobs, growth and sound government finances while imposing high taxes and running a big welfare state. It's done it through what the Danes call "flexicurity," a hybrid of free labor markets, unfettered business and adjusting welfare to give incentives for people to work so they can pay taxes to finance the benefits they get."

Same is done in Sweden and Norway. We have economic growth, the most happy populations in the world, and a wealthier average family than America. We too have huge boners for capitalism, but we just limit it in certain areas of society, like education and health care. That way most people get a very good education, the social heritage of poor decisions are broken, and no one dies in the streets because they don't have insurance. I'd say it's a win-win Johnny Keynes was a wise man.

Yes, Domenic Johannson IS happy as a Swede, because just the other day, the government of Sweden tried to take his parents parental rights away. Luckily, they decided in favor of Domenic's parents, but Domenic is still being kept in a government institution, perhaps one day, he will be returned to his parents. Why was he taken away? Because he was homeschooled.

http://freesweden.net/domenic_johansson.html

I ask that ANYONE who supports Sweden whatsoever read about Domenic, [MENTION=528]slant[/MENTION], [MENTION=3615]aerosol[/MENTION], @Europeansonthisforum, and then tell me, tell me why Sweden is a better place to live. Tell me WHY Sweden is a better place to live when Women who choose to stay home and raise children are BULLIED and RIDICULED by Feminists who believe they are a disgrace to all women. Its almost like when

Dan savage called gay republicans House Faggots,
Or
Joy Behar saying GOP gays only vote for Romney because we're attracted to his sons
Or
Michael Musto calling GOP gays "Jewish Nazis" and "black klansmen"

Wow, how have I been so blind, the right IS intolerant. Shame on me.

I challenge any supporter of Sweden to read about Domenic Johannson and tell me why we should be more like Sweden, Tell me about how great race relations are in Sweden (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/18/racism-becoming-the-norm-sweden) Tell me. I dare you.

But you won't, because you never do. Because when confronted with a challenge, as par for the course you are silent. Like today when the democrats refused to vote a Holder in contempt, they just walked out. They made it seem courageous, to prove partisan ship, but what is more courageous? To stand and let your voice be heard and counted for on record? Or to hide your views from those who elected you.

Sweden is a vile and disgusting country, and its fools can live on folly for only so long, until it sinks into the sea.

P.s. the only reason any of those three countries are doing remotely ok w/ socialism is because of their extremely homogeneous culture.

I advocate for works programs. Get people rebuilding in the rural areas to alleviate urban sprawl. Fund massive initiatives to tear down and rebuild decaying houses--make them more environmentally friendly with good insulation and alternative energy built in. Stuff like windmills and solar panels. You stop the rush to the urban centers which helps reduce crime and such and boost smaller local economies in the heartland which will strengthen the overall economy.

The Great Lord and King FDR tried that, the New Deal didn't work, the Newer Deal as you're proposing, won't work either.

Stop bailing out massive farming groups. Focus your energy on supporing a network of small growers and create localized produce/meat co-ops to build more eco friendly operations across the country. The ability to eliminate the chemical preservatives would have health benefits. I would also advocate for a food stamp like program for fresh fruit and produce. Preference to be given to local growers for purchasing. Sort of like the WIC program. Enable people to afford to eat healthy and jumpstart the ability of creating these smaller farming networks across the country.

Why choose small corporations over large corporations? Are not all men created equal?


Stop giving huge tax breaks to big corporations.

You realize the more a corporation thrives, the more taxes they pay anyways, correct? BTW, in response to your Big Oil comments earlier, Big Oil's profit margin is only around 9%, where as Apple, Microsoft, hell, pretty much EVERY major corporation's profit margins are way higher than that.

Especially if they don't offer health care and hire teenagers. Tighten up the job market by making it harder for teenagers to work. Penalize companies who hire a certain percentage of teenage workers so it makes better sense to hire someone who has a family to support.

So then all men aren't created equal?

If you tighten up the job market then you reduce the need for unemployment benefits and such. That way those companies that want to hire people who don't need health insurance or don't have to support a family-- pay more in taxes to cover the adult worker who is out of a job.

Oh ok, so its ok to deny someone anything that is deemed ok by arbitrary committees. Gotcha.

BTW the USA is not a capitalistic market.


USA is a socialistic republic. It's not quite socialist enough to be pure socialism, it's more capitalistic than socialistic, but you cannot call USA pure capitalism. It is not.

Well then, I guess we can say its socialisms fault America is failing, not Capitalism.