I still don't understand the idiotic arguement made by Free-Market idealists. "There's no incentive to work in Socialism"
Taking into account the valid points brought up in this video. Explain to me what the incentive is to work in Capitalism? Is wage slavery an incentive?
Actually the facts point otherwise. Western Europe which uses many atrributes of Socialism, social democracy, redistribution ect..Enjoys greater worker productivity than the USA, and HIGHER standards of living.
This ongoing crushing of the middle class will eventually lead to rioting, mass suicide, and breakdown of civilization. All so the top 1% can reap ever greater profits.
One of the sick points that I think many people miss out on is that everyone (read everyday people that we know "Main St.") must trade their time for money; an abstraction, something that doesn't actually exist. We trade our time, our lives for digits in bankers computers. Bankers that produce nothing but just collect our lives.
We have the technology to live freely. Ie; produce goods that are durable and last. Goods and services that give to the community from trains and subways to things as
Interesting interpretations, thank you for sharing your opinions about what these numbers might mean. I like that you guys don't pretend to be objective and then the spin information. Commercial network news does this and I find it troublesome.
Another way to explain the increase in productivity is to say that workers have dropped their standards significantly. How could they not, there are fewer of them and they are not happy. Moral is almost never found on a financial statement.
WHen will people figure out that economic forces cant fix the economy when those economic forces are the ones that drove it to this crisis in the first place?
I will not pretend that I dont have a socialist bent. I'm Canadian, we're not communists, but we recognize the value of government intervention on the side of the people. Yes our government is populated chiefly by idiots, but at least they try. I shudder to think of what things would be like if we were like the US, and CEOs had free reign
History is probably the least studied subject on this continent, because we tend to look forward instead of backward, but this is becoming a crippling Achilles heel. Corporations have almost always only acted in the interest of the public over their own margins when forced to by the government. You need look no further than auto manufacturers, who only installed seat belts when required to by the government, claiming "Our customers dont want to pay for seat belts."
Corporations are not evil monsters, they are comprised of small-minded people with a limited field of vision which is almost entirely restricted to Black and Red ink. They dont see the greater good, they see profits and losses, and they dont care about economic downturn except that it means lower profits. You cant expect the corporations to try to make the problem better by themselves, and it's not fair to, because that's not their job. Their job is to make money, period. That's why we have govt
it IS the government's job to intervene and correct the problems and negative behaviors of society. That's exactly what we hire them for, what we pay them for, and I cant for the life of me understand these retards who seem to think the government shouldnt regulate things, because that is their ONLY real job. Paying them to regulate, then telling them not to, is paying them not to do their jobs, and really, the government is our only defense against rampant self-destructive coal-fired capitalism
I mean what the hell, people, didnt you pay attention in history class when they were discussing the industrial revolution? Employers were unregulated, and went completely amok, practically (sometimes literally) working their employees to death under appalling conditions.
Like your coffee breaks? Do you think the corporations all agreed to give you those? Fuck no, the government told them they had to. Government regulation is for the good of the employees. For the love of god, people, wake up.
If left unregulated, the forces of commerce and industry would gladly see workers slip back down into the living hell of post-industrial labor, working fourteen hour shifts with no breaks, no benefits, and barely-livable wages, extracting back every last penny they can, and forcing employees into debt by charging fees for everything from bathroom use to the privilege of using the tools provided by the employer for the job.
REGULATION IS NOT A DIRTY WORD! Now smarten up and ask the govt for help
As inhuman as it may seem, the ideal American worker is one who is completely enslaved and shackled to the machine he operates, so deep in debt that he cant afford to quit, stop working, take time off, or complain to his boss
In reality, the current US system is very much becoming a system of slavery. You are indebted, and just work, very much like the Indentured Servants of old europe, and if you quit, or cant pay your debt, you lose everything, even go to jail. You cant afford to stop working
Naturally people still need to do their jobs, but forcing them at the crack of a whip or with the threat of bankruptcy, homelessness, or even prison is not the right way to do it.
Look at the european system. Look at Germany, shining example that it is. Six weeks paid vacation, standard. None of this one week this year, two weeks next year, three weeks the year after that crap. 32 hour work weeks instead of 40, with socialized benefits, and higher unit productivity than US laborers.
what if I told you the modern corporation, and large business in general are only possible when a government exists to subsidize their inefficiencies? And in the absence of a state all the big evil corporations would be out competed by the little guys? What would that mean?
That would mean nothing. The large corporations are large because of aggressive and successful business plans, not subsidies. The subsidies have only come as the result of the threat of collapse of large, important companies, with nothing to replace them if they fail.
The big corporations (not evil, just careless and heavy handed) out-compete the little guys because of a very simple principle:
Manufacturing, shipping, and selling are more efficient in volume. Hence the Sherman or T-34 over PZ6
when I used the word subsidize I meant it in a very broad and general sense. I am talking about all the laws and regulations which benefit corporations. That includes everything from minnimum wage, and zoning laws, to the transportation monopoly and general business regulations. It also includes Intellectual property laws. Subsidy may have not been the best word choice. There are economies of scale, but there are also diseconomies of scale. Smallness is organizationally superior to bigness
Partly wrong.Big corporation hire lobbyist,lobbyist bribe politician,politician passes law,amendments or heavy cost to start a business (resulting few if none starting a business).Companies also get Hugh tax brakes (Chase in 2005 paying only 1% percent in taxes) but not the little guy
you're assuming that the only subsidies that exist are bailouts which happen after big businesses fail. Government favors for big business come in many forms, as has already been pointed out, and an important part of the strategy of a large corporation is to make concerted efforts to shift public dialogue and influence politicians to enact policies which favor them economically. That's not about shrewd business or competition, it's about a perversion of democracy. The U.S. is a banana republic.
Well it is true that companies in the US have been getting extraordinary subsidies and using their own monetary pull to buy and sell politicians like bonds, but these companies arent big and powerful because of these hand-outs, they're getting these hand-outs because they're big and powerful. They started with a shrewd business plan or a successful campaign, built up, and now reap the (perverse) benefits, lawful or not.
But of course this doesnt change the fact that regulation is your friend.
My main point was not that the companies are all fair and generally good or anything. I know damn well that they're only looking out for number 1, and they use any method they can to tip the playing field in their favor. My original point was regarding regulation, socialization, and Public Interest.
Take Too big to fail for instance. If a company is too big to fail, it should not be trusted to private interests. The public, who depend on that company, should own it outright, for their own good.
I agree with you there, if we're talking about infrastructure which is necessary for public interests, the public should be investing in it.
I just think it's more complicated than a total meritocracy. There's nepotism and other factors as well. Some big businesses stem from a good idea, good practices, or a lucky break, but just look at KBR, which gave birth to Halliburton. A personal family fortune was invested in a promising young corrupt politician, Lyndon Johnson.
He taught KBR to lowball bids on New Deal dam building projects (which were actually important) and then they could apply for additional funding behind the scenes without public scrutiny. Later, when he became president, KBR and LBJ were turning Texas into the center for almost all new military infrastructure, which was possibly part of why LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam. Competition was never a part of the equation.
+1 for state capitalism! Now, lets see if state socialism wins gets some pts with the passing of this welfare reform monstrosity. But alas, in the end there is no state capitalism or state socialism, only statism.
Productivity has increased because marginally profitable activities have been cut. These are the types of activities that were hoped would develop into growth but are slow at starting or are now postponed. Also cut is where the business was barely competitive and no longer is given lower revenue. The result is the core is unburdened with the marginal activity giving productivity and profitability increases as a % of revenue even though revenue and profit has decreased.
I am currently working in a factory, and a lot of people choose to run the machines at a speed well above that required to meet the daily quota. Other crews are much more relaxed and only run the machines fast enough to reach the quota, which tends to leave a good amount of down time.
I sa a laRouche DVD that somoen gave me and I thought he was wrong hen he said Tony Blair was Cheney's boss. Cheney does not look like a man to take orders from someone as much as a weasel as Tony is. I throw the dvd in the trash after that.
Squeezing that cash out of the serfs. You try and tell people that revenue and productivity don't show up in wages, it gets ignored for the free market fantasy math equation.
Without disparaging the organised workforce: those workers who are left to "pick up the slack", as mentioned, are often in the position to benefit from their extra efforts, if in the very least as a result of them being kept on as productive in the first place!
In other words, companies need those kind of people who can be extremely flexible at times and that flexibility often pays off for both employer and employee. You can't always paint with a broad brush. See small businesses.
Not only is the worker not getting a 6.2% increase in pay to match production increases, but benefits are being lowered, cuts in pay... on and on. Companies may be showing profits, but the workers are getting screwed.
not to mention wall street and government screwing around with the oil price by rattling sabres over Iran, and wall street parasites squeezing profits on the nations lifeblood.
Bernanke, Geithner, Rubens, Summers, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan & the Federal Reserve Bank know exactly what they are doing by collapsing the US Dollar:
The purpose of this financial crisis is to take down the U.S. dollar as the stable datum of planetary finance and, in the midst of the resulting confusion, put in its place a Global Monetary Authority [GMA - run directly by international bankers freed of any government control] -a planetary financial control organization" - Bruce Wiseman
This was even called the "credit crisis". Wage could artificially increase again with more credit. But the money has to come from somewhere.
The US, especially it's companies are going to have to learn how to once again live on savings. When that happens increases in wealth can't pulled simply by loan rates changing. In other words, you have a stable economy.
You are poised for inflation which is doubly bad. You'll get a credit high again, with a crash, and discourage saving money.
You guys are constantly wrong on matters of economics. The guy at the top always makes the same amount of money. When you tax them to death, and mandate programs that are doomed to failure(i.e. cap & trade, obamacare), owners work their people harder for less money. Stupid central economic planners. Government won't solve economic dispairity. Your best bet is to take up arms, or accept your role in society.
I think the point is that Fear is being used as a motivator now, rather than prosperity. Sort of like how recently rescued Goldman Sack (us) was able to lavish million dollar bonuses to over a 100 'top' guys for basically just raising everyone's interest rates, lying and stealing to inflate bogus profits, etc.
They don't have to share - and now, like in most repressed, third world countries, the workers cower under threat of being laid off.
Basically Animal Farm (best illustrates the point).
Currently, the world is forming ad-hoc currency baskets for trade in order to get away from the contamination, which is the US dollar, (google: Shanghai Organizational Coop); & setting up for a new World Order Currency
Meanwhile, the USA has Stockholm Syndrome, where the terrorized population through Obama actually supports their terrorist: Last week Obama is actually giving more power to their captors, the Federal Reserve Bank, rather than prosecuting them
the modern bourgeois state created, facilitates and prevents the destruction of capitalism.
the economic history of Europe and the USA clearly exemplify that point. from the dispossession of the english peasantry, to the dispossession of africans and native americans into slavery- the state and market work together and against society.
What makes it Fascism is the large corporate elite have the assistance of the government (the gun) to force labor into working harder for nothing.
Sort of like slavery, as the labor has no choice but to starve otherwise. Using Fear as a motivator is Fascist. Having only a few top elite basque in the honey while others starve is criminal.
It is just proof of corruption and evil in our government/society that must be removed.
You are correct, there exists no 'true' capitalist society - it is an ideal just as 'true' communism or socialism doesn't exist. THESE are just philosophies.
The point is the definition ...we call ourselves one thing, and behave like another - it is deceitful and an embarrassment to the USA.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There are arguments on whether we are becoming more fascist or more socialist. There seems to be little debate on whether we are becoming more ruled and restricted with bigger government controls. (With or without collusion from business)
The arguments are becoming ludicrous. To avoid being more fascist we must impose rules to become more socialist. Or vice versa.
It doesn't matter if we are bending towards fascism or socialism. Both are totalitarian.
Capitalism is the process of harnessing the market, that is human interactions in a positive and productive manner.
It becomes "crony" when laws are placed to benefit some and impede others. The more extreme it gets, the more crony it gets. The more useless it becomes to call the process Capitalism
Slavery was and is "crony". This has been repealed but now even more rules are in place on an even larger portion of the populace. Skin color no longer is the easy way to show unfair treatment.
When you have the government backing only some of the companies in a market and can block their competition - and force the population to pay for their services against its will under threat of violence or incarceration it is called FASCISM! (Period)
It isn't an argument as to whether true free capitalism exists, it is an argument to call our government what it is by definition - Fascist.
If only people knew that capitalism started by throwing the peasants out of their own land, they'd realize that there is no freedom in capitalism, it's a criminal exploitation system.
Only by blackmail you can force people to work for "employers".
I wouldn't call the enclosure movement free market. I wish to know more about the enclosure movement, but it seems to me that it was a movement which was subsidized by the state. If the state did not exist the costs of forcefully removing individuals from the common lands would be internalized, and thus economically irrational. If these common lands came about through emergent voluntary order, they are legitimate. At the same time changes in tech prob made enclosure more economically viable.
The case of Australia makes the example of the dispossession of the peasants even clearer.
In Australia the capitalists pushed the state to force by law a much higher price for the land, so that for a dispossessed peasant to buy it back, it would take his whole life working in a factory.
The capitalists have always needed to leave people no other choice than to work for them. It's a criminal blackmail exploitation system.
References: David Harvey - Reading Marx's Capital Class 12
If a company has been living off of credit for the past 3 decades, they appear more wealthy and must compete with other highly credited companies. Wages go up between them as they compete for employees.
When credit is pulled, none of the companies have the excess of before, most have to fire and ask more from employees because they don't get payment in advance anymore.
What things are "shrinking down to" is what they actually are without crazy credit. And there's more to go still.
The privately owned FED is a house of mirrors, it has nothing, it is cotton candy spun by deranged monkeys on Wall Street trying to get a paycheck!
It took the entire history of America up until last year to accumulate 12 trillion in debt; but we have given out another 15 trillion free to banks over the last year alone!
Free markets don't exist for a reason. They cannot survive. You'll find it in your textbooks but not in reality.
Corporations know that to survive while chasing greed (free market ideals), they need to be regulated in order not to destroy themselves. But of course, the cycle repeats, they fuck us, they get bailed out and they start again.
what if the modern corporation only exists because of government? You said it yourself that corporations wont survive unless a state exists to externalize their inefficiencies.
The elitist wish to eliminate the middle class and create only two classes. The elite class (less than 1%) and the poor class(everyone else). With the economic crises the banks(along with the Federal Reserve) have cause, and the slave wages, they are doing it.
class is measured by access, control and ownership of the means of production.
therefore, the "middle class" is a myth. it only exists in the speeches of politicians and the rich, like the "free market". there is no autonomous body between the interests of capital and labor- the bourgeois destroyed that in the 18th century.
and the division of present capitalist society into two hostile camps is a reality in place for centuries now.
the middle class is seen by the power class as a resource to be consumed. The existence of a middle class stems from labor movements and the imposition of a minimum wage which, when it was first passed, was a living wage. The current system, w/stagnant wages, jobs/young workers have no future, and parents pay their cost of living while they use their paycheck for ipods, is moving the wealth from the middle class to the rich. The middle class isn't a myth, but it's going the way of the dinosaurs.
I think it would help, although that sudden a jump would theoretically be temporarily difficult on the economy, and would definitely be hard to accomplish politically. What I think would solve a lot of the world's problems would be for the U.S. and the E.U. to establish a living wage law, rather than a minimum wage law... ie, periodically cost of living would be evaluated and the minimum wage adjusted accordingly.
Then the next step would be for the U.S. and the E.U., as consumer-heavy societies, to impose the same restriction on imports... the local equivalent of a living wage must be paid for the producers of all products and services which are imported. It's not likely to happen anytime soon, but that's something I think would make a huge difference in the world. If I could spread one idea and get people talking about one thing in the public dialogue, that would be it... but I have no voice
all that would do is create a shortage of labor, raise the barrier of entry, destroy "main street" (I think street should be main street), and give the big corporations a picking of who they want and don't want to hire. The corporations would benefit because competition will become even more difficult.
I don't agree and I'll tell you why: I think it's already like that. I think that "barrier of entry" you're talking about exists whether the price of employing someone is $300/day or $2/day. Businesses will always cut costs as much as possible and use as few workers as they possibly can. The workers they have are the workers they need to produce, at a bare minimum, and increasing wages won't change that. What's more, requiring overtime payment or reducing the workday forces them to hire more.
people aren't "forced" to rent themeselves, at least not directly. This is merely the economic environment that has been created through the interaction between the corporations and the state. (state privilege/barrier to entry) The violence of the state makes the exploitation of the corporatation possible.
No? So if you don't have a job you will still make an income to provide you with a lifestyle that you have become accustomed to under your current standard of living? Working for a wage is renting yourself regardless of whether or not it has negative connotations.
what exactly are you arguing against? "wage slavery"? or the connection between consumption and production? In order for consumption to exist, there must be production in some form. Utopia is not an choice.
Who said anything about a Utopia? Who said anything about "wage slavery"? We are talking about the direct coercion of our current system that forces the mass of people to "rent" themselves in order to procure some kind of livelihood, whether or not those who actively engage in renting themselves out would describe it as so or whether they would describe it as coercion. Work or starve. Pretty simple to grasp and unambiguous. I sell mortgages, and though I make decent money, i'm renting myself.
what you are talking about is also referred to as wage slavery by libertarian socialists. Am i coercing against you if I refuse to give you $50 dollars to buy a new pair of shoes? what if you really need a new pair? What about need a meal? Is holding my justly acquired income from another person ever force?
I know what the concept of wage slavery is, but I am making a distinction between wage slavery and the renting of one's labor. Wage slavery implies subsistence level of income, renting one's labor for income is implicit at all levels below management. I posit that if I add value to the company for whom I labor I should, by right, be compensated that exact amount. If, through my labor, I add $2grand to the business I should keep that money. What right does an employer have to withhold it from me?
Okay, wage slavery =/= the renting of your labor. And I agree that individuals should receive an income which is in proportion to the amount of value they create. The problem is that value only exists within individual's minds, and any objective standard of value is impossible to establish. I guess what I am arguing is the state's involvement in the market is what prevents individuals from receiving the full value of their labor.
Well, i'm far from having socialist sympathies, I am more of a classical liberal. Yet to argue that state intervention in the market prohibits laborers from receiving the full value of their labor is to dismiss the golden age of America post World War 2 when there were high incomes a broad based middle class. Wages remained stagnant after 1973, and have actually declined through the Reagan, Clinton and Bush years, and will probably do so through Obama and beyond.
Because of this economic crisis, employers tell their workers the budget is low, paying them less. This is so the employer keeps making the same amount of money he was making before.
Government intervention is not the way to go. Workers need to demand a better pay, even if wilfully slaves offer their service for pennies.
Something has to happen, chaotic or not, but compromise should never be the option, workers have compromised too much already.
great don't tell me they're gonna migrate to places like OKC because that would just cause problems that OKC has never had. I think people from OKC tend to pride themselves in not having the social problems on as large of a scale as it is on the coast lines, and rust belt.
A problem too, is that, increased productivity is good, but what really matters is profit, filling up shelves or warehouses with more stuff isnt more profit, sales are.
But with recession its expected that sales arent going to be great, so employers are taking advantage of workers now in anticipation of 3rd and 4th quarter sales.
Its such a nasty catch 22 for people in this world, always lagging behind someone else's (budget/profit/loss/greed/selfishness/benevolence/political) ratios.
I still don't understand the idiotic arguement made by Free-Market idealists. "There's no incentive to work in Socialism"
Taking into account the valid points brought up in this video. Explain to me what the incentive is to work in Capitalism? Is wage slavery an incentive?
Actually the facts point otherwise. Western Europe which uses many atrributes of Socialism, social democracy, redistribution ect..Enjoys greater worker productivity than the USA, and HIGHER standards of living.
wnxsilence 2 years ago
well, force could be considered an incentive... it's essentially wage slavery
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
Thank you Dem's & Repub's and lets not forget there supporters who destroyed this nation one election at a time.
WarDogLRS 2 years ago
Save every dime you can, you 'll need it.
rickkluga 2 years ago
This ongoing crushing of the middle class will eventually lead to rioting, mass suicide, and breakdown of civilization. All so the top 1% can reap ever greater profits.
audadvnc 2 years ago
The threat of losing your job always raises productivity but never lasts.
Mahoivlich 2 years ago
Excellent report, guys.
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
put on a parachute the dollars going to crash.....
matt1987401 2 years ago
One of the sick points that I think many people miss out on is that everyone (read everyday people that we know "Main St.") must trade their time for money; an abstraction, something that doesn't actually exist. We trade our time, our lives for digits in bankers computers. Bankers that produce nothing but just collect our lives.
We have the technology to live freely. Ie; produce goods that are durable and last. Goods and services that give to the community from trains and subways to things as
LeedansParis 2 years ago 2
simple and seemingly wacky as fruit and nut trees in public places.
We work not for what we need for our day to day lives but for an hourly wage or salary which is continually becoming less and less.
Starve the beast friends.
Pay cash to small, family owned and run businesses.
Buy less, grow and make what you need.
Create community.
Barter, trade and share.
LeedansParis 2 years ago
This was predictable, but thank you for articulating it.
Entrepreneur-ism is available for anyone and everyone.
Come-on America, grab yourself a chunk of the pie!
950horsepower 2 years ago
Interesting interpretations, thank you for sharing your opinions about what these numbers might mean. I like that you guys don't pretend to be objective and then the spin information. Commercial network news does this and I find it troublesome.
Another way to explain the increase in productivity is to say that workers have dropped their standards significantly. How could they not, there are fewer of them and they are not happy. Moral is almost never found on a financial statement.
NLPNVC 2 years ago
WHen will people figure out that economic forces cant fix the economy when those economic forces are the ones that drove it to this crisis in the first place?
I will not pretend that I dont have a socialist bent. I'm Canadian, we're not communists, but we recognize the value of government intervention on the side of the people. Yes our government is populated chiefly by idiots, but at least they try. I shudder to think of what things would be like if we were like the US, and CEOs had free reign
Etimos 2 years ago
History is probably the least studied subject on this continent, because we tend to look forward instead of backward, but this is becoming a crippling Achilles heel. Corporations have almost always only acted in the interest of the public over their own margins when forced to by the government. You need look no further than auto manufacturers, who only installed seat belts when required to by the government, claiming "Our customers dont want to pay for seat belts."
Etimos 2 years ago
Corporations are not evil monsters, they are comprised of small-minded people with a limited field of vision which is almost entirely restricted to Black and Red ink. They dont see the greater good, they see profits and losses, and they dont care about economic downturn except that it means lower profits. You cant expect the corporations to try to make the problem better by themselves, and it's not fair to, because that's not their job. Their job is to make money, period. That's why we have govt
Etimos 2 years ago
it IS the government's job to intervene and correct the problems and negative behaviors of society. That's exactly what we hire them for, what we pay them for, and I cant for the life of me understand these retards who seem to think the government shouldnt regulate things, because that is their ONLY real job. Paying them to regulate, then telling them not to, is paying them not to do their jobs, and really, the government is our only defense against rampant self-destructive coal-fired capitalism
Etimos 2 years ago
I mean what the hell, people, didnt you pay attention in history class when they were discussing the industrial revolution? Employers were unregulated, and went completely amok, practically (sometimes literally) working their employees to death under appalling conditions.
Like your coffee breaks? Do you think the corporations all agreed to give you those? Fuck no, the government told them they had to. Government regulation is for the good of the employees. For the love of god, people, wake up.
Etimos 2 years ago
If left unregulated, the forces of commerce and industry would gladly see workers slip back down into the living hell of post-industrial labor, working fourteen hour shifts with no breaks, no benefits, and barely-livable wages, extracting back every last penny they can, and forcing employees into debt by charging fees for everything from bathroom use to the privilege of using the tools provided by the employer for the job.
REGULATION IS NOT A DIRTY WORD! Now smarten up and ask the govt for help
Etimos 2 years ago
As inhuman as it may seem, the ideal American worker is one who is completely enslaved and shackled to the machine he operates, so deep in debt that he cant afford to quit, stop working, take time off, or complain to his boss
In reality, the current US system is very much becoming a system of slavery. You are indebted, and just work, very much like the Indentured Servants of old europe, and if you quit, or cant pay your debt, you lose everything, even go to jail. You cant afford to stop working
Etimos 2 years ago
Naturally people still need to do their jobs, but forcing them at the crack of a whip or with the threat of bankruptcy, homelessness, or even prison is not the right way to do it.
Look at the european system. Look at Germany, shining example that it is. Six weeks paid vacation, standard. None of this one week this year, two weeks next year, three weeks the year after that crap. 32 hour work weeks instead of 40, with socialized benefits, and higher unit productivity than US laborers.
Etimos 2 years ago
what if I told you the modern corporation, and large business in general are only possible when a government exists to subsidize their inefficiencies? And in the absence of a state all the big evil corporations would be out competed by the little guys? What would that mean?
DeraJa 2 years ago
That would mean nothing. The large corporations are large because of aggressive and successful business plans, not subsidies. The subsidies have only come as the result of the threat of collapse of large, important companies, with nothing to replace them if they fail.
The big corporations (not evil, just careless and heavy handed) out-compete the little guys because of a very simple principle:
Manufacturing, shipping, and selling are more efficient in volume. Hence the Sherman or T-34 over PZ6
Etimos 2 years ago
when I used the word subsidize I meant it in a very broad and general sense. I am talking about all the laws and regulations which benefit corporations. That includes everything from minnimum wage, and zoning laws, to the transportation monopoly and general business regulations. It also includes Intellectual property laws. Subsidy may have not been the best word choice. There are economies of scale, but there are also diseconomies of scale. Smallness is organizationally superior to bigness
DeraJa 2 years ago
Partly wrong.Big corporation hire lobbyist,lobbyist bribe politician,politician passes law,amendments or heavy cost to start a business (resulting few if none starting a business).Companies also get Hugh tax brakes (Chase in 2005 paying only 1% percent in taxes) but not the little guy
matt1987401 2 years ago
you're assuming that the only subsidies that exist are bailouts which happen after big businesses fail. Government favors for big business come in many forms, as has already been pointed out, and an important part of the strategy of a large corporation is to make concerted efforts to shift public dialogue and influence politicians to enact policies which favor them economically. That's not about shrewd business or competition, it's about a perversion of democracy. The U.S. is a banana republic.
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
Well it is true that companies in the US have been getting extraordinary subsidies and using their own monetary pull to buy and sell politicians like bonds, but these companies arent big and powerful because of these hand-outs, they're getting these hand-outs because they're big and powerful. They started with a shrewd business plan or a successful campaign, built up, and now reap the (perverse) benefits, lawful or not.
But of course this doesnt change the fact that regulation is your friend.
Etimos 2 years ago
My main point was not that the companies are all fair and generally good or anything. I know damn well that they're only looking out for number 1, and they use any method they can to tip the playing field in their favor. My original point was regarding regulation, socialization, and Public Interest.
Take Too big to fail for instance. If a company is too big to fail, it should not be trusted to private interests. The public, who depend on that company, should own it outright, for their own good.
Etimos 2 years ago
I agree with you there, if we're talking about infrastructure which is necessary for public interests, the public should be investing in it.
I just think it's more complicated than a total meritocracy. There's nepotism and other factors as well. Some big businesses stem from a good idea, good practices, or a lucky break, but just look at KBR, which gave birth to Halliburton. A personal family fortune was invested in a promising young corrupt politician, Lyndon Johnson.
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
He taught KBR to lowball bids on New Deal dam building projects (which were actually important) and then they could apply for additional funding behind the scenes without public scrutiny. Later, when he became president, KBR and LBJ were turning Texas into the center for almost all new military infrastructure, which was possibly part of why LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam. Competition was never a part of the equation.
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
how many of you posting talking about the poor working slaves have actually worked in a factory? or even been in a factory?
DeraJa 2 years ago
+1 for state capitalism! Now, lets see if state socialism wins gets some pts with the passing of this welfare reform monstrosity. But alas, in the end there is no state capitalism or state socialism, only statism.
DeraJa 2 years ago
Asinine report.
Productivity has increased because marginally profitable activities have been cut. These are the types of activities that were hoped would develop into growth but are slow at starting or are now postponed. Also cut is where the business was barely competitive and no longer is given lower revenue. The result is the core is unburdened with the marginal activity giving productivity and profitability increases as a % of revenue even though revenue and profit has decreased.
stratvic 2 years ago
Stop working so hard slaves.
pro272727 2 years ago
I am currently working in a factory, and a lot of people choose to run the machines at a speed well above that required to meet the daily quota. Other crews are much more relaxed and only run the machines fast enough to reach the quota, which tends to leave a good amount of down time.
DeraJa 2 years ago
No jobs creation, no real economic recovery.
jimbonumber9 2 years ago 2
Wall street of course..
Notayup 2 years ago
Look at 2:38
They are all fat
sansez 2 years ago
Goldman Sachs?
TheHairyHeart 2 years ago
Goldman sachs is a big bank. Perhaps as big as bank of america.
captcrais101 2 years ago
Is Lyndon LaRouche right in his comment that within 2 months the US economic system will be Kaput?
dunskie 2 years ago
I sa a laRouche DVD that somoen gave me and I thought he was wrong hen he said Tony Blair was Cheney's boss. Cheney does not look like a man to take orders from someone as much as a weasel as Tony is. I throw the dvd in the trash after that.
captcrais101 2 years ago
Squeezing that cash out of the serfs. You try and tell people that revenue and productivity don't show up in wages, it gets ignored for the free market fantasy math equation.
abortabraham 2 years ago 5
you are so fkG right
finanelly1 2 years ago
Without disparaging the organised workforce: those workers who are left to "pick up the slack", as mentioned, are often in the position to benefit from their extra efforts, if in the very least as a result of them being kept on as productive in the first place!
In other words, companies need those kind of people who can be extremely flexible at times and that flexibility often pays off for both employer and employee. You can't always paint with a broad brush. See small businesses.
walkwalkslow 2 years ago
Solar flare. ?
phnixlady 2 years ago
Good report. *****
Drogoempedocles 2 years ago
Recovery for those that get bail outs. That is how corporate socialism works.
If the market would be left to function it would all be over by now. Instead, this is just the beginning.
Oh btw, worker productivity statistics might be the most useless statistic in the world.
Visfen 2 years ago
Fed debt per person: $120K
Un-funded Medicare/Medicaid per person: $332K
Fed's plundered trusts per person: $30K
Un-funded SS: $166K
Total Gov debt per person: $648K FED debt
Gov grows 4 Xs faster than economy
Fed spending grows 16 times faster than economy, (16 fold expansion in control & gov dependence)
The US gov now holds 57% share of entire National Income = Government makes more than all the money made in private sector!
How long does the USA honestly think it will last?
sugarpuddin88 2 years ago
The un-funded SS might very well be even larger when the inflation comes. I've read estimates on $100 trillion in obligations. It is a disaster.
Just like you're saying, it is a question of when, not if.
Visfen 2 years ago
Not only is the worker not getting a 6.2% increase in pay to match production increases, but benefits are being lowered, cuts in pay... on and on. Companies may be showing profits, but the workers are getting screwed.
fal2grace 2 years ago 3
not to mention wall street and government screwing around with the oil price by rattling sabres over Iran, and wall street parasites squeezing profits on the nations lifeblood.
WRz101 2 years ago
yep, you're absolutely right.
fal2grace 2 years ago
Bernanke, Geithner, Rubens, Summers, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan & the Federal Reserve Bank know exactly what they are doing by collapsing the US Dollar:
The purpose of this financial crisis is to take down the U.S. dollar as the stable datum of planetary finance and, in the midst of the resulting confusion, put in its place a Global Monetary Authority [GMA - run directly by international bankers freed of any government control] -a planetary financial control organization" - Bruce Wiseman
sugarpuddin88 2 years ago
This was even called the "credit crisis". Wage could artificially increase again with more credit. But the money has to come from somewhere.
The US, especially it's companies are going to have to learn how to once again live on savings. When that happens increases in wealth can't pulled simply by loan rates changing. In other words, you have a stable economy.
You are poised for inflation which is doubly bad. You'll get a credit high again, with a crash, and discourage saving money.
sirellyn 2 years ago
You guys are constantly wrong on matters of economics. The guy at the top always makes the same amount of money. When you tax them to death, and mandate programs that are doomed to failure(i.e. cap & trade, obamacare), owners work their people harder for less money. Stupid central economic planners. Government won't solve economic dispairity. Your best bet is to take up arms, or accept your role in society.
DavidThePatriot 2 years ago
I think the point is that Fear is being used as a motivator now, rather than prosperity. Sort of like how recently rescued Goldman Sack (us) was able to lavish million dollar bonuses to over a 100 'top' guys for basically just raising everyone's interest rates, lying and stealing to inflate bogus profits, etc.
They don't have to share - and now, like in most repressed, third world countries, the workers cower under threat of being laid off.
Basically Animal Farm (best illustrates the point).
PsyogiBottoms 2 years ago
Just face it: Americans love to bend over & take it like a little yatch!
Meanwhile, my Norwegian Kroners are going ballistic - Thank god I rolled all my IRAs, 401s & annuities into foreign currency IRAs
Now I'm making a killing!
The worse America does, the more money I make!
Go America Go!
sugarpuddin88 2 years ago
Currently, the world is forming ad-hoc currency baskets for trade in order to get away from the contamination, which is the US dollar, (google: Shanghai Organizational Coop); & setting up for a new World Order Currency
Meanwhile, the USA has Stockholm Syndrome, where the terrorized population through Obama actually supports their terrorist: Last week Obama is actually giving more power to their captors, the Federal Reserve Bank, rather than prosecuting them
sugarpuddin88 2 years ago
Government spending and investment always misallocates resources and leads to lower productivity.
Transitiving 2 years ago
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if there would be some massive worker strike in America.
martinkun167 2 years ago 4
Crap.
bbburton 2 years ago
capitalism by definition is 'crony'.
the modern bourgeois state created, facilitates and prevents the destruction of capitalism.
the economic history of Europe and the USA clearly exemplify that point. from the dispossession of the english peasantry, to the dispossession of africans and native americans into slavery- the state and market work together and against society.
mikezephyr 2 years ago 5
That is called fascism not capitalism. Completely different.
dylbro 2 years ago
what makes it fascism?
mikezephyr 2 years ago
What makes it Fascism is the large corporate elite have the assistance of the government (the gun) to force labor into working harder for nothing.
Sort of like slavery, as the labor has no choice but to starve otherwise. Using Fear as a motivator is Fascist. Having only a few top elite basque in the honey while others starve is criminal.
It is just proof of corruption and evil in our government/society that must be removed.
PsyogiBottoms 2 years ago 2
'the large corporate elite have the assistance of the government (the gun) to force labor into working harder for nothing.'
Show me ONE instance where this hasn't been the case in a capitalist society.
MarquisdeBarrabas 2 years ago 4
You are correct, there exists no 'true' capitalist society - it is an ideal just as 'true' communism or socialism doesn't exist. THESE are just philosophies.
The point is the definition ...we call ourselves one thing, and behave like another - it is deceitful and an embarrassment to the USA.
PsyogiBottoms 2 years ago
you just descrbed the dynamics of capitalism (fascism, being only one variation of capitalist economy).
"Having only a few top elite basque [sic] in the honey while others starve is criminal."
it's not a crime- the laws are precisely written by and for the rich and those in power.
morality, media, religion and politics legitimize the values and interests of the ruling class.
wrong, yes. but don't appeal to the law to convince me of the immorality of class society, thank you very much.
mikezephyr 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There are arguments on whether we are becoming more fascist or more socialist. There seems to be little debate on whether we are becoming more ruled and restricted with bigger government controls. (With or without collusion from business)
The arguments are becoming ludicrous. To avoid being more fascist we must impose rules to become more socialist. Or vice versa.
It doesn't matter if we are bending towards fascism or socialism. Both are totalitarian.
Try individual responsibility.
sirellyn 2 years ago
good point sirellyn!
DeraJa 2 years ago
Capitalism is the process of harnessing the market, that is human interactions in a positive and productive manner.
It becomes "crony" when laws are placed to benefit some and impede others. The more extreme it gets, the more crony it gets. The more useless it becomes to call the process Capitalism
Slavery was and is "crony". This has been repealed but now even more rules are in place on an even larger portion of the populace. Skin color no longer is the easy way to show unfair treatment.
sirellyn 2 years ago
My point was call it what it is (period).
When you have the government backing only some of the companies in a market and can block their competition - and force the population to pay for their services against its will under threat of violence or incarceration it is called FASCISM! (Period)
It isn't an argument as to whether true free capitalism exists, it is an argument to call our government what it is by definition - Fascist.
Tie a bow on it, still a Fascist Pig. Sorry.
That's the point.
PsyogiBottoms 2 years ago
If only people knew that capitalism started by throwing the peasants out of their own land, they'd realize that there is no freedom in capitalism, it's a criminal exploitation system.
Only by blackmail you can force people to work for "employers".
bonobo80 2 years ago 3
capitalism cannot be reformed
it must be destroyed.
kannibees 2 years ago 2
the state cannot be reformed it must be destroyed... (pretty much the same thing)
DeraJa 2 years ago
So very true.
phnixlady 2 years ago 2
The Real News' "Gold, impunity and violence in El Salvador" is proof that it continues to this day.
similarly, the destruction of the amazon in brazil, peru and bolivia for corporate profit follows as well.
mikezephyr 2 years ago 4
I wouldn't call the enclosure movement free market. I wish to know more about the enclosure movement, but it seems to me that it was a movement which was subsidized by the state. If the state did not exist the costs of forcefully removing individuals from the common lands would be internalized, and thus economically irrational. If these common lands came about through emergent voluntary order, they are legitimate. At the same time changes in tech prob made enclosure more economically viable.
DeraJa 2 years ago
Comment removed
bonobo80 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The case of Australia makes the example of the dispossession of the peasants even clearer.
In Australia the capitalists pushed the state to force by law a much higher price for the land, so that for a dispossessed peasant to buy it back, it would take his whole life working in a factory.
The capitalists have always needed to leave people no other choice than to work for them. It's a criminal blackmail exploitation system.
References: David Harvey - Reading Marx's Capital Class 12
bonobo80 2 years ago
Professor Richard Wolff yet AGAIN explains it all so well! Three cheers for him!
JixMa 2 years ago
If a company has been living off of credit for the past 3 decades, they appear more wealthy and must compete with other highly credited companies. Wages go up between them as they compete for employees.
When credit is pulled, none of the companies have the excess of before, most have to fire and ask more from employees because they don't get payment in advance anymore.
What things are "shrinking down to" is what they actually are without crazy credit. And there's more to go still.
sirellyn 2 years ago
The privately owned FED is a house of mirrors, it has nothing, it is cotton candy spun by deranged monkeys on Wall Street trying to get a paycheck!
It took the entire history of America up until last year to accumulate 12 trillion in debt; but we have given out another 15 trillion free to banks over the last year alone!
Meanwhile, the CIA is hiring bankers
sugarpuddin88 2 years ago
slave ship , paw !! ( whiplash ) work faster u bitch said the employer lol
Damienm7 2 years ago 2
Free markets don't exist for a reason. They cannot survive. You'll find it in your textbooks but not in reality.
Corporations know that to survive while chasing greed (free market ideals), they need to be regulated in order not to destroy themselves. But of course, the cycle repeats, they fuck us, they get bailed out and they start again.
Anyway you dig Ron Paul, I dig Chomsky ;)
herraotic 2 years ago 2
what if the modern corporation only exists because of government? You said it yourself that corporations wont survive unless a state exists to externalize their inefficiencies.
DeraJa 2 years ago
The elitist wish to eliminate the middle class and create only two classes. The elite class (less than 1%) and the poor class(everyone else). With the economic crises the banks(along with the Federal Reserve) have cause, and the slave wages, they are doing it.
Idtelos 2 years ago 2
class is measured by access, control and ownership of the means of production.
therefore, the "middle class" is a myth. it only exists in the speeches of politicians and the rich, like the "free market". there is no autonomous body between the interests of capital and labor- the bourgeois destroyed that in the 18th century.
and the division of present capitalist society into two hostile camps is a reality in place for centuries now.
mikezephyr 2 years ago 3
that sounds like an extremely black/white and pessimistic way to look at things.
DeraJa 2 years ago
the only way to be a revolutionary is to understand the story of how we came to be this way.
these are the realities we wrestle with.
mikezephyr 2 years ago
so there just isn't a middle class? It is a complete myth? Like fairies and Jesus?
DeraJa 2 years ago
the middle class is seen by the power class as a resource to be consumed. The existence of a middle class stems from labor movements and the imposition of a minimum wage which, when it was first passed, was a living wage. The current system, w/stagnant wages, jobs/young workers have no future, and parents pay their cost of living while they use their paycheck for ipods, is moving the wealth from the middle class to the rich. The middle class isn't a myth, but it's going the way of the dinosaurs.
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
if we raised the minimum wage to 20 or 15 dollars an hour, would that help?
DeraJa 2 years ago
I think it would help, although that sudden a jump would theoretically be temporarily difficult on the economy, and would definitely be hard to accomplish politically. What I think would solve a lot of the world's problems would be for the U.S. and the E.U. to establish a living wage law, rather than a minimum wage law... ie, periodically cost of living would be evaluated and the minimum wage adjusted accordingly.
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
Then the next step would be for the U.S. and the E.U., as consumer-heavy societies, to impose the same restriction on imports... the local equivalent of a living wage must be paid for the producers of all products and services which are imported. It's not likely to happen anytime soon, but that's something I think would make a huge difference in the world. If I could spread one idea and get people talking about one thing in the public dialogue, that would be it... but I have no voice
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
all that would do is create a shortage of labor, raise the barrier of entry, destroy "main street" (I think street should be main street), and give the big corporations a picking of who they want and don't want to hire. The corporations would benefit because competition will become even more difficult.
DeraJa 2 years ago
I don't agree and I'll tell you why: I think it's already like that. I think that "barrier of entry" you're talking about exists whether the price of employing someone is $300/day or $2/day. Businesses will always cut costs as much as possible and use as few workers as they possibly can. The workers they have are the workers they need to produce, at a bare minimum, and increasing wages won't change that. What's more, requiring overtime payment or reducing the workday forces them to hire more.
Capitalocracy 2 years ago
I disagree with you in some ways.
1. What are the deminishing returns?
2. The workers health deteriorates?
Sounds like you own a business are want your employees to act as slaves working until they drop dead.
rickkluga 2 years ago
This is a joke. What do you expect from wage slavery (the fact people are forced to rent themselves).
"Give a little back to the worker" nonsense is not the right question. Classical liberalism still remembers the true problems of society.
herraotic 2 years ago 4
people aren't "forced" to rent themeselves, at least not directly. This is merely the economic environment that has been created through the interaction between the corporations and the state. (state privilege/barrier to entry) The violence of the state makes the exploitation of the corporatation possible.
DeraJa 2 years ago
No? So if you don't have a job you will still make an income to provide you with a lifestyle that you have become accustomed to under your current standard of living? Working for a wage is renting yourself regardless of whether or not it has negative connotations.
DanMorgan98 2 years ago 2
what exactly are you arguing against? "wage slavery"? or the connection between consumption and production? In order for consumption to exist, there must be production in some form. Utopia is not an choice.
DeraJa 2 years ago
Who said anything about a Utopia? Who said anything about "wage slavery"? We are talking about the direct coercion of our current system that forces the mass of people to "rent" themselves in order to procure some kind of livelihood, whether or not those who actively engage in renting themselves out would describe it as so or whether they would describe it as coercion. Work or starve. Pretty simple to grasp and unambiguous. I sell mortgages, and though I make decent money, i'm renting myself.
DanMorgan98 2 years ago
what you are talking about is also referred to as wage slavery by libertarian socialists. Am i coercing against you if I refuse to give you $50 dollars to buy a new pair of shoes? what if you really need a new pair? What about need a meal? Is holding my justly acquired income from another person ever force?
DeraJa 2 years ago
I know what the concept of wage slavery is, but I am making a distinction between wage slavery and the renting of one's labor. Wage slavery implies subsistence level of income, renting one's labor for income is implicit at all levels below management. I posit that if I add value to the company for whom I labor I should, by right, be compensated that exact amount. If, through my labor, I add $2grand to the business I should keep that money. What right does an employer have to withhold it from me?
DanMorgan98 2 years ago
Okay, wage slavery =/= the renting of your labor. And I agree that individuals should receive an income which is in proportion to the amount of value they create. The problem is that value only exists within individual's minds, and any objective standard of value is impossible to establish. I guess what I am arguing is the state's involvement in the market is what prevents individuals from receiving the full value of their labor.
DeraJa 2 years ago
Well, i'm far from having socialist sympathies, I am more of a classical liberal. Yet to argue that state intervention in the market prohibits laborers from receiving the full value of their labor is to dismiss the golden age of America post World War 2 when there were high incomes a broad based middle class. Wages remained stagnant after 1973, and have actually declined through the Reagan, Clinton and Bush years, and will probably do so through Obama and beyond.
DanMorgan98 2 years ago
I am a market anarchist.
DeraJa 2 years ago
Because of this economic crisis, employers tell their workers the budget is low, paying them less. This is so the employer keeps making the same amount of money he was making before.
Government intervention is not the way to go. Workers need to demand a better pay, even if wilfully slaves offer their service for pennies.
Something has to happen, chaotic or not, but compromise should never be the option, workers have compromised too much already.
asperin 2 years ago 3
Bastard Banksters
bravehartmman 2 years ago
Worker productivity is up because anyone that still has a job has two or three jobs ... to carry the work of those that were laid off.
fal2grace 2 years ago 2
Wage-slavery continues.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago 5
Thus a need for a workers state???
retardedeskimo 2 years ago 3
This is why the consumer spending was so low as well.
Working class do not have incomes to support these high cost of living zones.
cool70200 2 years ago 3
great don't tell me they're gonna migrate to places like OKC because that would just cause problems that OKC has never had. I think people from OKC tend to pride themselves in not having the social problems on as large of a scale as it is on the coast lines, and rust belt.
lordblazer 2 years ago
A problem too, is that, increased productivity is good, but what really matters is profit, filling up shelves or warehouses with more stuff isnt more profit, sales are.
But with recession its expected that sales arent going to be great, so employers are taking advantage of workers now in anticipation of 3rd and 4th quarter sales.
Its such a nasty catch 22 for people in this world, always lagging behind someone else's (budget/profit/loss/greed/selfishness/benevolence/political) ratios.
cool70200 2 years ago
We know whom = the filthy rich bankers
Elmeromero1 2 years ago 6
...and certain government "officials"!
dabigez357 2 years ago