Out of control BORROW & spend goes back decades. The current leverage crisis is just the LATEST example - the straw that FINALLY BROKE the camel's back. Don't forget, MANY WARNED about the DANGEROUS LONG TERM consequences back in the 80's, when Reagan took this CREDIT CARD approach to governing, injected it with steroids, & essentially made it PSEUDO conservative dogma, the NATIONAL RELIGION!
Ron Paul was RIGHT - in 1988, & in 2008. His LOST party (& country) ignored him. Shame.
Yeah, I tend to think that Regan was jsut stupid, and duped into believing he was following the Jeffersonian idea of bankrupting government in order to make it downsize itself. Bush the same, but painfully more intent on not even bothering to understand it - What we got is a bankrupted government in tandem with a debt economy that is pilfering all public and private wealth into a few private hands.
dtaijo175 - I agree with you 100%. However a simple solution can be found in the Constitution. Have gold and Silver as money as well as Federal Reserve Notes. This way the Fed would have to behave or else people will not want to get paid in FRN.
This resolves the main issue pointed out in the beginning, the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich via printing and diluting the money supply.
I don't know currency & banking well enough to debate if going back to gold/silver is the answer.
However, inflation of the money supply isn't the sole root of the transfer of wealth. That dillutes the value of your dollar, obviously, but smashing organized labor has decreased 'working' people's buying power as well.
What Panitch is calling for here, is more transparency in banking - a lack of it is what let the Fed & banks run amock.
Free Marketers will scream "intervention" & swear that it will stiffle US lenders' ability to compete in the world, BUT, I'm guessing it would create confidence in the dollar. The major thing you'd have to watch out for is, is corruption by the 'overseers.'
I'm not all that sure that market changes aren't intentional (by benevolent or diabolical persons), or even irrelevant. Most investors see the media as just another tool.
(Please no NWO comments from members of the Internet University.)
I'm not talking about going back to 100% gold standard just competing money. Your lack of understanding of the evils of Fiat money has me at a disadvantage.
I've seen many of those. I'm tilling it over, but would you mind explaining some of the pitfalls of competing money, and benefits besides competition posssibly more 'honest'/sound(?).
Some of the obvious pitfalls are exchange and acceptance. Exchange rates will vary often and will have a charge from one to the other. This is the norm now but only for travelers not for the local population. Next is acceptance you will find more people and locals only accepting gold as it is something real as payment. Banks will lend with FRNs but can not (in most cases) lend gold. So credit cards and lines of credit could not exist.
Eventualy (not right away) the price of gold money priced in FRNs to sky rocket as may will borrow FRNs to buy gold money. But the price of food, oil homes and will remain the same price in gold. There will be ups and and downs but nothing like we have seen in with housing market using paper money.
YOu have to understand man's desire for riches have no limit. If there is no limit to the amount of money to be created he will seek to create it.
That's better put as "man's desire for material wealth has no limit," which I think is entirely untrue, in that that notion is only true for a small damaged minority, who from time to time sweep the majority into it as well by equating their wealth with power, and using it to drive everyone into deep competition with each other.. eventually people realize it is fruitless. The statement also assumes that man is only secure and satisfied with individual ownership.
Is the major bebenfit of competing money that competition will create value stability? - note-makers striving for soundness.
This is a little off-topic is its aim, but isn't gold's value sort of nonsense? Although it is noncorrosive (and we do use it for satellites, etc), and its easily transported/concealed, isn't its value based on historical value? People in crisis seek gold b/c it has been valuable before, & so is thought to be in the future. (continues..)
Its rarity is the only thing that keeps its value from dramatically fluctuating, it still fluctuates as purchaseable goods increase or more gold is mined and introduced into circulation.
If stability creates consciousness that gold isn't inherently valuable, isn't it in the gold-holders interest to create instability from time to time to increase 'faith' in gold? Guess it probably works the same for paper money.
Is the Fed theoretically SUPPOSED to only print in tandem with GDP growth?
Crock703 - said Is the Fed theoretically SUPPOSED to only print in tandem with GDP growth?
Yes if the currency is to ensure low inflation.
But do they do that? They are subjected to political and corporate will, that always needs more and asks them to bend just a bit, then a bit more and even more. Until finally we have gone so far it would disaster not to continue. (credit crisis)
Gold as money stops them at the beginning and acts like a financial stone wall.
absolute power breeds absolute corruption. The U.S. "our country" has turned into an empire with over 700 military bases worldwide. Iraq changed from the petro dollar to the euro to purchase its oil. The 1st. order was to change the purchase of Iraqi oil back to the petro "U.S." dollar. ALL OIL purchased in the world has to be purchased with the U.S. dollar.
crock703 said - "Man's desire for material wealth has no limit, Witch I think is entirely untrue"
Your statement assumes that everyone is as you believe them to be. Meaning no one could possibly exist outside of your perception of people. The assumption that people will eventually stop lusting after more than were they are today is more even more ludicrous. :)
My statement about material wealth is just as presumptive as yours.
My point is that there is wealth beyond material holdings - it seems that the less one finds security in his personal relationships & whatever non tangible things (you can say spirituality, or the peace of mind that comes from having proven something to yourself), the greater their need for material confirmation. All wealth is about security, & an escalating desire for it is usually just the product of the isolation it creates
How true!Ive had wealth monetarily, and I've lost wealth also. when you're down and out you truly find out who your friends are and who loves you for you. You also pegged it on the isolation also. This so called recession is really a depression! Talk to some old timers like I have and every one of them told me this is a depression, possibly worse than the great depression because no one knows how to garden or farm anymore. We need a revolution to put the money back in the hands of the people!
We just need banking laws and oversight regulations enforced, more transparency w/ big corporations & real prosecution of white collar criminals - people can stop using gas & instead use public transpo, plant gardens on their lawns and try to be more self-reliant.. and stop watching so much f'ing tv
Croock703 - there is wealth beyond material holdings but your expectation that everyone knows this or whats that kind of wealth is not reality.
Look are you going to sit there and say that everyone is good and no one will find a way to cheat the system? Clearly you are not, so adding restrictions to a bad system is not a solution. The monetary system must change to prevent tampering, gold and silver provide that.
Some people aren't inherently evil, they're just consumed by fear & desperately hoard wealth w/o the preserence of moral leaderhip/influence.
No, I don't think you'll get an uncorrupted world where we can trust a Fed Res to function unfalteringly ethically. The suggestions this guy is making is to appoint oversees to the Fed, that are publically elected - it would force voters & journalists to become educated about Fed function. They'd be demystified & made accountable for once.
I'm skeptical about gold being the tamper-proof solution its lauded to be. If you're wealthy, you can hoard goal to drive the price up, instigate conflict so that it will sky rocket further, & exploit it to collect the remaining gold through your businesses, then buy whatever greater power you want. (Like buying legislation that creates an income tax or non-transarent Fed)
Is there even enough gold in the world to account for all our goods/services?
1. All the evils you said about gold is accomplished only by a Fiat currency as the less gold out there the more it's worth. Also and a rich person or group can't get it all. You can't eat gold or live in it.
2. Like the above scenario the remaining gold will still have value just cost less for things in gold terms meaning an IPod would go for 1/32 of an ounce instead of 1/10. Because that is the price people would pay with the existing gold. Value is value no mater what it's number.
BTW there is the same amount of gold per person now as there was 100 years ago. That is .6 an ounce per person.
If you build great products people will want it and give you gold for it, just like they do with Fiat currency. Then you are getting some thing for something. Instead of nothing for something. With Fiat someone else (banks) are getting something for nothing.
That seems sort of hard to believe b/c FRNs are supposed to represent all the domestic goods (not just gold), and since FRNs are misrespesentative, isn't the value of gold relative to goods (for trading) unknown - esp b/c new increased demand for it will drive its price way up?
Your perception is in dollars. So it is difficult for you to understand gold. When you do something for payment you expect payment. That payment is to obtain something else, possibly at a later date. So that payment must hold it value long enough to get that item you want. FRNs (dollars) do not hold there value and go down in value. (it cost more to buy the same thing later) So $ you saved in your mattress or bank account has is useless 30 years from now. That is theft.
A lot of people aren't educated enough to know that their dollars really are "votes," most can't really make educated decisions b/c the global market is changing so quickly (can you point out which bag of rice is produced unfairly and how big their market share is?), and an increasing proportion of the US pop doesn't have the financial freedom to "vote" - instead buying what feeds.
As much as the Internet/tv has made info available, there is too much choice & change for you to know exatcly what your dollars are doing usually.
That's why, although an informed free market is ideal, trade laws that protect basic worker rights, enviro protection, &
product safety are good to help transitioning to it. No plan can be devastating - the big us Immigration influx is basically b/c NAFTA ruined self-sustaining Mexican farming/agriculture, so people came here looking for work.
Crock, I'm surpirsed at your open mindedness. Most close the doors on anything different. I won't waste our time in debate, but if you are truly interested in learning abut free trade & monetary policy go to Mises Media. The best economist ever (Freidman, Hayeck, & Ludwig von Mises).
I've checked out Mises a bit, and read the fringes of Chicago school/Austrian stuff. The Libertarian ideal is intriguing to me, and it seems like a pretty natural order.
The major problem I see with all of them, is that they're almost uptopian in that they focus on the end goal & don't factor in how the changes will conflict w/ people's cultures and identities - things that will stall acceptance/contentment w/ the new model.
Anyway, its not the even playing field it contends to be. The ideal may be nice, but the way it is recklessly applied is barbaric - less prepared cultures are destroyed, and all the knowledge and 'treasures' that go with them.
Also, beneath it all is the belief that war can only be averted by mutually assured financial loss - rather than shared understanding and compassion. That may sound corny, but its true & they're very different.
I worry that the same narrow end goal-focused ideal that Friedman starts at and works back from is just a deep-rooted personal flaw of his expressed in his theories. See the Chicago School's hand in shaping the Chilean economy, & the terror it dismissed as collateral damage.
This is a reach, but if you look at L Ron Hubbard & Scientology, you can see the danger of a strong but flawed mind blazing new ground - its deeply theoretical, utopian, and ultimately psychotic.
The free market may be a great ideal, but today I think its mostly lauded by theory-absorbed academics & twisted by self-interested people/parties that actually just favor 'elite' controlled trade. I think the developed world is banking on the undevl remaining paralyzed by the shock of change long enough to strip them of the world's limited resources.
Just looking at the American Indians we can see how different concepts of ownership & dissproportionate power collided to destroy a culture.
All economies must find some way to solve the production/consumption imbalance. Through the industrial revolution, as technology allowed productivity to rise, the solution was to decrease production by decreasing working hours and shrinking the work force (eliminating child labour). This trend continued until the post-war era when it was discovered that planned / perceived obsolescence could compensate for increased productivity by increasing consumption.
This has led to increasing consumerism, decreasing quality of goods, and an explosive expansion of advertising (all of which has also contributed to environmental degradation.) A partial solution would be to decrease the work week to 4 days, set longevity standards on consumer products similar to existing safety standards, and repatriate a large part of our manufacturing via trade tariffs...
(allowing free trade only with those nations whose environmental, labour and safety regulations are similar to our own.) None of this can happen currently because all of these measures would injure corporate profits and aid that unimportant bottom 95% of the population. Read Canadian Author Robert Bruce - Working Harder isn't Working for a layman's guide.
adventurenox - Interesting theory. Though it seems to boil down to just being a variation of the now-discredited broken-glass theory of economics, where it was suggested that jobs are created by a window breaking, and needing to be replaced, therefore the economy can really surge ahead by people going around smashing and repairing windows.
Introducing inefficiencies into the system, such as you propose (for that is essentially what they are) is a recipe for stagnation, and relative-backwardism.
I'm actually talking about greater efficiency. Imagine it takes 10 worker hours to create 10 units. If a technology comes along which allows 1 worker hour to create 10 units 9 workers suddenly find themselves in a quandary. They can either make the units last 1/10th as long (requiring 10 times the units), loose their jobs, or work 1/10th as much for the same pay (ten units are still being created, right?) I know I'd prefer the last option.
What you've described is actually the system we have now, where rather than breaking the window, the window either wares out quickly (how long do cars last now-a-days?), is made obsolete (VHS), is made to seem obsolete (fashion).
The question we must all ask ourselves is what type of efficiency is important to us? Worker efficiency of profit efficiency? By the way, the system of decreasing working hours to compensate for increased productivity...
...doesn't lead to stagnation but prosperity (the industrial revolution).
Technology will eventually (if it hasn't already) allow all humanity to be provided for materially with a decreasing amount of labour. Cheap consumer goods were a stop-gap solution, but we need a better plan for the long term - the only equitable plan that I see is to limit how much any individual works (for pay) thereby sharing the available payable work and thus keeping wages high.
I think that you are looking at it back-to-front. Reduced hours, etc. weren't the goal of the industrial revolution, and shouldn't be here. The increased productivity led to increased profits and SAVINGS, which were then able to be reallocated as capital investment into new productive areas of the economy. America no longer saves it borrows and lives on credit. Asian countries still save, and it is that excess capital that they reinvest. THAT is the sign of a truly wealthy nation, not less hours
But what is the value of a being a wealthy nation? You're quite correct that reduced working hours wasn't the goal of the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution had no goal, it was a largely spontaneous event with many results, one of which was a push by the labour movement, when faced with increased worker productivity, to shorten working hours and thus improve their lot.
It's not greater efficiency if you are just staying equal with your equally inefficient/low productivity trading partners, and going backward relative to those outside your trading block. If a nation outside your international trading block gets ten times the productive work per annum out of a worker for the same fixed salary that you get, don't you see that that nation will develop and progress a lot faster than your nation? You are setting yourself up for becoming a backward nation.
It is greater labour effeciency if you understand the goal of society to improve the lives of it's members. You seem to see the economy as some kind of race between nations, which is a valid point of view, but one that I do not share. The question of becoming backward is moot in western democracies where we have the technological know-how to meet all our needs.
I think the problem is that you don't seem to properly appreciate the dynamics of a free market economy. There is no "quandary", as you say. In such a system, those funds are reallocated to better use, seeking profit elsewhere. This is often in solving problems, and developing new products. That is, progressing, and improving universal quality of life.
You forget that one of the key solutions that I mentioned was a more closed trading system. You state that those funds will be reallocated to better use, but the truth is that those funds will be funneled to the upper strata of society who, by virtue of their position, are ill-equipped to determine what "better use" is for the majority below them. "Universal quality of life" improvements do not only come from material possessions, but as study after study prove, from how we spend our time.
What I've been describing concerning planned obsolescence isn't a theory, it is a policy first proposed in 1932 by Bernard London. Read "Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence." After the economy was vitalized through the demands of increased war and reconstruction production, Brooks Stevens re-popularized the idea as a way of keeping the economy moving at such a hectic pace. A ironic historical note: the US was set to shorten the work week just before Pearl Harbor was attacked.
Take your money out of the bank and leave the country, we only have a year left. There is no time to throw away. Sadly I'm stuck here but if you can get out, do it now!
As Bush peers out from his bunker, he casts his beleagured eyes around the world, looking for some opportunity to provoke a crisis that will re-stimulate the Heartland's natural militarism--and help the Republicans avoid disaster this fall. Opportunity #1: Iran
Bush: Arrange a "Tonkin Gulf" incident in the Persian Gulf that will justify another war. This could be achieved by ordering US naval destroyers to patrol closer to the Iranian Coast, to provoke a reaction by Iran. Watch for this.
The supreme irony is this: Bush and the NeoCons have mismanaged our domestic and foreign affairs so badly, that they have set in motion the forces they hate the most: Democratic Socialism Collectivism.
Unless Bush and his handlers can manage some kind of Reichstag Fire (without being exposed)before November, we may see (in the next year) a huge advance towards liberalism, populism, and socialism in this country.
Maybe it is time to nationalize Big Oil, Big Banks, etc.
@NewColdness Well, the most troubling aspect of Obama's presidency is his massive deficit spending.....In fact, it is terrifying to those who know what it could lead to. Bush wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, too. Military procurement and corruption re: the Iraq War constituted a national scandal. Right now, the biggest threat to the continued existence of this nation is---The federal government.
I've read lastnymleft comments over and over. I need simplification like this. Where does your presidential candidate fit in this spectrum. Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, or corporatist?
To end this fiasco we've built is to make America more democratic. We need a democratic democracy and not a democratic republic. As it stands now the President, Congress and the Supreme Court is beholden to big business and not to the American people. The laws are made purely from the stand point of who donates to these representatives. The wars are made for the benefit of corporations.
this ia an idea: its weird but im just going to put it out there. why dont we study, and I mean really study, the social order of certain animal species and maybe look to base certain elementss of our society off of our findings. I think we nedd to get back to our roots, im kinda feelin an Anarcho-primitivism tyoe society with a little bit of collective and a little bit of trade. this system with paper money worth nothing is not working, jus cause the economy is good, doesnt mean the people are
Communism is socialized profits, socialized losses
Socialism is socialized profits, privatized losses
Capitalism is privatized profits, privatized losses
Corporatism is privatized profits, socialized losses
As Benito Mussolini stated during WWII, Fascism would be more appropriately called "Corporatism". Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve's recent bailout of Bear Sterns made it obvious that we are now open Corporatism.
The answer to our probs is not Socialism, but a reversion to *Capitalism*.
JNZ35 - Yes, and now that we are in open fascism (albeit soft-fascism...at this point) where is the outrage? There was hardly a squeak from the CFR-owned/controlled media when the Fed bailed out Bear Sterns, saying "It's too crucial to allow it to collapse". What they have done is worse than allowing multiple collapses at this point, because their actions will make the INEVITABLE crash all the worse. And that's when, with precedent set, we will likely transition from soft-fascism to hard-fascism
The situation they speak about here is not at all different to the Joad family in The Grapes of Wrath; regarding companies owning generation to generation households.
studio7manga - Those in society that make corporations possible are called "shareholders", and they HAVE a vote, proportionate to their commitment into the company. What this turkey is talking about is giving people with no skin in the game influence of those that have put their own money at risk. That's a recipe for disaster.
The problem is that we have ventured from capitalism to corporatism, a merger between Big Business and the State, to the detriment of ALL, including small business.
Shareholders are not the society, if it wasn't for our open liberal values, educated workforce and consumers who purchase products corporations would not be able to operate, it takes a lot more than just financiers to make a corporations successful.
Everyone has skin in the game, we are all one society, make it a proportional representation sure, but make it representational.
Corporatism, more commonly known as Fascism, I agree. Though pure capitalism can't exist, & Laisser faire is bad news.
Educated workers get paid for their time, consumers get product for their money. To suggest that someone is getting something for nothing, or the balance is not right, is simply not correct. Where you may have argument is in the socialization of operational costs, and of losses ie the difference between Corporatism and Capitalism. Pure capitalism and Laisse faire capitalism CAN exist, IF the STATE does what it should: defend property rights, enforce contracts, and not interfere. It hasn't been.
If I pit you against a 500 pound heavy weight boxer and ask you to fight to the death, then when you protest I point out that both of you have muscles and skeletons and boxing gloves so therefore you are both equally capable of landing punches, do you shrug and say "oh well I guess it's fair after all."
Now just take that analogy and replace the 500 pound boxer with a born in multi-millionaire. Is the system fair?
To say the system we have now is a perfect end state is overly optimistic.
I didn't say the system we have now is a perfect end state. We're in Corporatism, which is horrific. We need to get back to Capitalism, for starters
You used a poor analogy.
1- Businesses compete for customers, not against each other directly. Small companies CAN win, if Gov't doesn't slant table.
2- Parents passing wealth to their children is a lot more just than you being able to vote to send someone (albeit with a government badge) with a gun to steal from me, which is what you are proposing
I would suggest that something along the lines of Anarcho-syndicalism & Participatory economics would be a more effective economic system in the raising up of all individuals than the one we have now.
I don't believe Capitalism is the best system possible, either. But I believe that out of Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, and Corporatism, it is the best, by far
Abrogation of power to the unions is not a good way to go, either. It's just more of the same, but with a different partner.
Work up your ideas, stick an -ism on the end, and publish it with a "Manifesto" in the title. I would buy a copy.
I've been working on my own, for some years now. It's like Capitalism 2.0. Better is possible
Participatory economics isn't really any of the above economic models, perhaps it could be simply part of the well regulated market in a Capitalism 2.0 society. Generally I feel more democracy and more public involvement in policy is bound to have positive effects, assuming the public is well educated and informed, which at present it isn't.
"Work up your ideas...I would buy a copy."
Heheh, I'm a loooong way from that fine day but I'm trying. Same goes for you as well. Progress is the key.
"well regulated market" - Whoah! I never said that should be part of Capitalism 2.0. It is exactly that that has allowed Big Business to merge with Big Government, to turn Capitalism into Corporatism. Like these BS "free trade" agreements that are, in fact, managed trade agreements. Free trade requires a one-page document: "Each Government should stay the hell out of it". NAFTA, CAFTA, have THOUSANDS of pages, benefiting mega-Corporations.
We must end corporate welfare, corporate bailouts, etc.
Well in the case of participatory economics it would be the people themselves doing the regulating. We'd just need a basic structure to get a little bit of organization, the internet might help with that, a consumer forum site of sorts maybe. In the mean time you can check the wikipedia article about participatory economics. It's interesting, I don't buy all of it but there's a lot of good ideas in it.
"We must end corporate welfare, corporate bailouts, etc."
"parecon, is a proposed economic system that uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the production, consumption and allocation of resources in a given society" - People ALREADY do that! They vote with their dollars. What you're proposing is that people that AREN'T prepared to vote with their dollars should get a say, or those that do only a little bit should get a disproportionate say. Either way is unjust and will inevitably lead to inefficiencies and malinvestment
Not everyone has dollars to vote with, and there is more to the economy than buying things, this covers things like economic impact, something that theoretically effects everyone.
Hence my first response, where I said you could legitimately argue against the socialization of operating costs, etc. But those issues can be dealt with within the framework of capitalism, *free* markets, and private property. You should read up on Ron Paul's environmental policies. At first blush it appears "weak" (or did to me), but it's really quite sophisticated, and would work well. It just doesn't sell as a 30 second sound-bite. He's a thinking man's candidate. Unfortunately, few do now.
I'll look into that, I was going to say something about the potential pitfalls of deregulation but I'm not in the mood at the moment, maybe tomorrow night.
There aren't many people in America without sufficient funds to vote for the things that they *need* - food, clothing, shelter. Plenty still buy cars, whitegoods and other electricals, etc., in excess of the bare necessities. They vote on what affects them.
The problem is the merger between Big Business and Big Government, and is what needs to be attacked. As they are acting as one, increasing the power of one increases the power of the other. Calling for "more regulation" only feeds the beast.
Out of control BORROW & spend goes back decades. The current leverage crisis is just the LATEST example - the straw that FINALLY BROKE the camel's back. Don't forget, MANY WARNED about the DANGEROUS LONG TERM consequences back in the 80's, when Reagan took this CREDIT CARD approach to governing, injected it with steroids, & essentially made it PSEUDO conservative dogma, the NATIONAL RELIGION!
Ron Paul was RIGHT - in 1988, & in 2008. His LOST party (& country) ignored him. Shame.
RonPaulGeorgeRingo 3 years ago 3
The modern-day Republican presidential philosophy of governing by credit card is a virus that must be destroyed.
It has been a disaster, not to mention setting a terrible example for the people of our country.
Reagan Bush Bush
Debt! Debt! Debt!
The hole is now WAY too deep. This is NOT the time for (more) establishment candidates.
Write in Ron Paul.
RonPaulGeorgeRingo 3 years ago
Yeah, I tend to think that Regan was jsut stupid, and duped into believing he was following the Jeffersonian idea of bankrupting government in order to make it downsize itself. Bush the same, but painfully more intent on not even bothering to understand it - What we got is a bankrupted government in tandem with a debt economy that is pilfering all public and private wealth into a few private hands.
crock703 3 years ago
50% truths & 50% BS.
Agenda agenda agenda...
"The collective solutions to their problem."
A democratic economy is the FREE market not socializing. You vote with your wallet. You don't like the product dont buy it. You like, you buy it.
dtaijo174 3 years ago
dtaijo175 - I agree with you 100%. However a simple solution can be found in the Constitution. Have gold and Silver as money as well as Federal Reserve Notes. This way the Fed would have to behave or else people will not want to get paid in FRN.
This resolves the main issue pointed out in the beginning, the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich via printing and diluting the money supply.
davincij15 3 years ago
I don't know currency & banking well enough to debate if going back to gold/silver is the answer.
However, inflation of the money supply isn't the sole root of the transfer of wealth. That dillutes the value of your dollar, obviously, but smashing organized labor has decreased 'working' people's buying power as well.
What Panitch is calling for here, is more transparency in banking - a lack of it is what let the Fed & banks run amock.
crock703 3 years ago
Free Marketers will scream "intervention" & swear that it will stiffle US lenders' ability to compete in the world, BUT, I'm guessing it would create confidence in the dollar. The major thing you'd have to watch out for is, is corruption by the 'overseers.'
I'm not all that sure that market changes aren't intentional (by benevolent or diabolical persons), or even irrelevant. Most investors see the media as just another tool.
(Please no NWO comments from members of the Internet University.)
crock703 3 years ago
I'm not talking about going back to 100% gold standard just competing money. Your lack of understanding of the evils of Fiat money has me at a disadvantage.
Short video explaining...
watch?v=z6NfXk7Bvc8
and a long one...
watch?v=TZP7dzfkkHA
To really understand it google "Money as debt"
Your comment is appreciated.
davincij15 3 years ago
I've seen many of those. I'm tilling it over, but would you mind explaining some of the pitfalls of competing money, and benefits besides competition posssibly more 'honest'/sound(?).
crock703 3 years ago
Some of the obvious pitfalls are exchange and acceptance. Exchange rates will vary often and will have a charge from one to the other. This is the norm now but only for travelers not for the local population. Next is acceptance you will find more people and locals only accepting gold as it is something real as payment. Banks will lend with FRNs but can not (in most cases) lend gold. So credit cards and lines of credit could not exist.
davincij15 3 years ago
Eventualy (not right away) the price of gold money priced in FRNs to sky rocket as may will borrow FRNs to buy gold money. But the price of food, oil homes and will remain the same price in gold. There will be ups and and downs but nothing like we have seen in with housing market using paper money.
YOu have to understand man's desire for riches have no limit. If there is no limit to the amount of money to be created he will seek to create it.
davincij15 3 years ago
That's better put as "man's desire for material wealth has no limit," which I think is entirely untrue, in that that notion is only true for a small damaged minority, who from time to time sweep the majority into it as well by equating their wealth with power, and using it to drive everyone into deep competition with each other.. eventually people realize it is fruitless. The statement also assumes that man is only secure and satisfied with individual ownership.
crock703 3 years ago
About money:
Is the major bebenfit of competing money that competition will create value stability? - note-makers striving for soundness.
This is a little off-topic is its aim, but isn't gold's value sort of nonsense? Although it is noncorrosive (and we do use it for satellites, etc), and its easily transported/concealed, isn't its value based on historical value? People in crisis seek gold b/c it has been valuable before, & so is thought to be in the future. (continues..)
crock703 3 years ago
Its rarity is the only thing that keeps its value from dramatically fluctuating, it still fluctuates as purchaseable goods increase or more gold is mined and introduced into circulation.
If stability creates consciousness that gold isn't inherently valuable, isn't it in the gold-holders interest to create instability from time to time to increase 'faith' in gold? Guess it probably works the same for paper money.
Is the Fed theoretically SUPPOSED to only print in tandem with GDP growth?
crock703 3 years ago
Crock703 - I would like to answer you last question as it answers "why gold" question.
davincij15 3 years ago
Crock703 - said Is the Fed theoretically SUPPOSED to only print in tandem with GDP growth?
Yes if the currency is to ensure low inflation.
But do they do that? They are subjected to political and corporate will, that always needs more and asks them to bend just a bit, then a bit more and even more. Until finally we have gone so far it would disaster not to continue. (credit crisis)
Gold as money stops them at the beginning and acts like a financial stone wall.
davincij15 3 years ago
absolute power breeds absolute corruption. The U.S. "our country" has turned into an empire with over 700 military bases worldwide. Iraq changed from the petro dollar to the euro to purchase its oil. The 1st. order was to change the purchase of Iraqi oil back to the petro "U.S." dollar. ALL OIL purchased in the world has to be purchased with the U.S. dollar.
714302 3 years ago
crock703 said - "Man's desire for material wealth has no limit, Witch I think is entirely untrue"
Your statement assumes that everyone is as you believe them to be. Meaning no one could possibly exist outside of your perception of people. The assumption that people will eventually stop lusting after more than were they are today is more even more ludicrous. :)
davincij15 3 years ago
My statement about material wealth is just as presumptive as yours.
My point is that there is wealth beyond material holdings - it seems that the less one finds security in his personal relationships & whatever non tangible things (you can say spirituality, or the peace of mind that comes from having proven something to yourself), the greater their need for material confirmation. All wealth is about security, & an escalating desire for it is usually just the product of the isolation it creates
crock703 3 years ago
How true!Ive had wealth monetarily, and I've lost wealth also. when you're down and out you truly find out who your friends are and who loves you for you. You also pegged it on the isolation also. This so called recession is really a depression! Talk to some old timers like I have and every one of them told me this is a depression, possibly worse than the great depression because no one knows how to garden or farm anymore. We need a revolution to put the money back in the hands of the people!
714302 3 years ago
We just need banking laws and oversight regulations enforced, more transparency w/ big corporations & real prosecution of white collar criminals - people can stop using gas & instead use public transpo, plant gardens on their lawns and try to be more self-reliant.. and stop watching so much f'ing tv
crock703 3 years ago
Croock703 - there is wealth beyond material holdings but your expectation that everyone knows this or whats that kind of wealth is not reality.
Look are you going to sit there and say that everyone is good and no one will find a way to cheat the system? Clearly you are not, so adding restrictions to a bad system is not a solution. The monetary system must change to prevent tampering, gold and silver provide that.
davincij15 3 years ago
Some people aren't inherently evil, they're just consumed by fear & desperately hoard wealth w/o the preserence of moral leaderhip/influence.
No, I don't think you'll get an uncorrupted world where we can trust a Fed Res to function unfalteringly ethically. The suggestions this guy is making is to appoint oversees to the Fed, that are publically elected - it would force voters & journalists to become educated about Fed function. They'd be demystified & made accountable for once.
crock703 3 years ago
I'm skeptical about gold being the tamper-proof solution its lauded to be. If you're wealthy, you can hoard goal to drive the price up, instigate conflict so that it will sky rocket further, & exploit it to collect the remaining gold through your businesses, then buy whatever greater power you want. (Like buying legislation that creates an income tax or non-transarent Fed)
Is there even enough gold in the world to account for all our goods/services?
crock703 3 years ago 2
1. All the evils you said about gold is accomplished only by a Fiat currency as the less gold out there the more it's worth. Also and a rich person or group can't get it all. You can't eat gold or live in it.
2. Like the above scenario the remaining gold will still have value just cost less for things in gold terms meaning an IPod would go for 1/32 of an ounce instead of 1/10. Because that is the price people would pay with the existing gold. Value is value no mater what it's number.
davincij15 3 years ago
BTW there is the same amount of gold per person now as there was 100 years ago. That is .6 an ounce per person.
If you build great products people will want it and give you gold for it, just like they do with Fiat currency. Then you are getting some thing for something. Instead of nothing for something. With Fiat someone else (banks) are getting something for nothing.
davincij15 3 years ago
That seems sort of hard to believe b/c FRNs are supposed to represent all the domestic goods (not just gold), and since FRNs are misrespesentative, isn't the value of gold relative to goods (for trading) unknown - esp b/c new increased demand for it will drive its price way up?
crock703 3 years ago
Your perception is in dollars. So it is difficult for you to understand gold. When you do something for payment you expect payment. That payment is to obtain something else, possibly at a later date. So that payment must hold it value long enough to get that item you want. FRNs (dollars) do not hold there value and go down in value. (it cost more to buy the same thing later) So $ you saved in your mattress or bank account has is useless 30 years from now. That is theft.
davincij15 3 years ago
Wow. Thank you. I'm a bright person, but I'm struggling with understanding these economic complexities. Seriously.
Another thing. Commodities speculation - seems to me that there is something immoral about that. Am I confused or naive?
mcoldskool 3 years ago
Let me help first Google "Money as Debt" and watch that video then ask a question about it and I will try to answer it.
BTW keep in mind that speculation only drives the price up temporarily as speculators need to sell some time to lock in profits.
davincij15 3 years ago
That's a simple and idealogical answer.
A lot of people aren't educated enough to know that their dollars really are "votes," most can't really make educated decisions b/c the global market is changing so quickly (can you point out which bag of rice is produced unfairly and how big their market share is?), and an increasing proportion of the US pop doesn't have the financial freedom to "vote" - instead buying what feeds.
crock703 3 years ago
As much as the Internet/tv has made info available, there is too much choice & change for you to know exatcly what your dollars are doing usually.
That's why, although an informed free market is ideal, trade laws that protect basic worker rights, enviro protection, &
product safety are good to help transitioning to it. No plan can be devastating - the big us Immigration influx is basically b/c NAFTA ruined self-sustaining Mexican farming/agriculture, so people came here looking for work.
crock703 3 years ago
Crock, I'm surpirsed at your open mindedness. Most close the doors on anything different. I won't waste our time in debate, but if you are truly interested in learning abut free trade & monetary policy go to Mises Media. The best economist ever (Freidman, Hayeck, & Ludwig von Mises).
dtaijo174 3 years ago
I've checked out Mises a bit, and read the fringes of Chicago school/Austrian stuff. The Libertarian ideal is intriguing to me, and it seems like a pretty natural order.
The major problem I see with all of them, is that they're almost uptopian in that they focus on the end goal & don't factor in how the changes will conflict w/ people's cultures and identities - things that will stall acceptance/contentment w/ the new model.
crock703 3 years ago
Anyway, its not the even playing field it contends to be. The ideal may be nice, but the way it is recklessly applied is barbaric - less prepared cultures are destroyed, and all the knowledge and 'treasures' that go with them.
Also, beneath it all is the belief that war can only be averted by mutually assured financial loss - rather than shared understanding and compassion. That may sound corny, but its true & they're very different.
crock703 3 years ago
I worry that the same narrow end goal-focused ideal that Friedman starts at and works back from is just a deep-rooted personal flaw of his expressed in his theories. See the Chicago School's hand in shaping the Chilean economy, & the terror it dismissed as collateral damage.
This is a reach, but if you look at L Ron Hubbard & Scientology, you can see the danger of a strong but flawed mind blazing new ground - its deeply theoretical, utopian, and ultimately psychotic.
crock703 3 years ago
The free market may be a great ideal, but today I think its mostly lauded by theory-absorbed academics & twisted by self-interested people/parties that actually just favor 'elite' controlled trade. I think the developed world is banking on the undevl remaining paralyzed by the shock of change long enough to strip them of the world's limited resources.
Just looking at the American Indians we can see how different concepts of ownership & dissproportionate power collided to destroy a culture.
crock703 3 years ago
The Reagan brand of credit card conservatism is destined for the ash heap of history.
Governing by MASSIVE deficit spending (Reagan/Bush/Bush) is NOT leadership.
RonPaulGeorgeRingo 3 years ago
1
All economies must find some way to solve the production/consumption imbalance. Through the industrial revolution, as technology allowed productivity to rise, the solution was to decrease production by decreasing working hours and shrinking the work force (eliminating child labour). This trend continued until the post-war era when it was discovered that planned / perceived obsolescence could compensate for increased productivity by increasing consumption.
adventurenox 3 years ago
2
This has led to increasing consumerism, decreasing quality of goods, and an explosive expansion of advertising (all of which has also contributed to environmental degradation.) A partial solution would be to decrease the work week to 4 days, set longevity standards on consumer products similar to existing safety standards, and repatriate a large part of our manufacturing via trade tariffs...
adventurenox 3 years ago
3
(allowing free trade only with those nations whose environmental, labour and safety regulations are similar to our own.) None of this can happen currently because all of these measures would injure corporate profits and aid that unimportant bottom 95% of the population. Read Canadian Author Robert Bruce - Working Harder isn't Working for a layman's guide.
adventurenox 3 years ago
Oops! I meant Bruce O'Hara.
adventurenox 3 years ago
adventurenox - Interesting theory. Though it seems to boil down to just being a variation of the now-discredited broken-glass theory of economics, where it was suggested that jobs are created by a window breaking, and needing to be replaced, therefore the economy can really surge ahead by people going around smashing and repairing windows.
Introducing inefficiencies into the system, such as you propose (for that is essentially what they are) is a recipe for stagnation, and relative-backwardism.
lastnymleft 3 years ago
1
I'm actually talking about greater efficiency. Imagine it takes 10 worker hours to create 10 units. If a technology comes along which allows 1 worker hour to create 10 units 9 workers suddenly find themselves in a quandary. They can either make the units last 1/10th as long (requiring 10 times the units), loose their jobs, or work 1/10th as much for the same pay (ten units are still being created, right?) I know I'd prefer the last option.
adventurenox 3 years ago
2
What you've described is actually the system we have now, where rather than breaking the window, the window either wares out quickly (how long do cars last now-a-days?), is made obsolete (VHS), is made to seem obsolete (fashion).
The question we must all ask ourselves is what type of efficiency is important to us? Worker efficiency of profit efficiency? By the way, the system of decreasing working hours to compensate for increased productivity...
adventurenox 3 years ago
3
...doesn't lead to stagnation but prosperity (the industrial revolution).
Technology will eventually (if it hasn't already) allow all humanity to be provided for materially with a decreasing amount of labour. Cheap consumer goods were a stop-gap solution, but we need a better plan for the long term - the only equitable plan that I see is to limit how much any individual works (for pay) thereby sharing the available payable work and thus keeping wages high.
adventurenox 3 years ago
I think that you are looking at it back-to-front. Reduced hours, etc. weren't the goal of the industrial revolution, and shouldn't be here. The increased productivity led to increased profits and SAVINGS, which were then able to be reallocated as capital investment into new productive areas of the economy. America no longer saves it borrows and lives on credit. Asian countries still save, and it is that excess capital that they reinvest. THAT is the sign of a truly wealthy nation, not less hours
lastnymleft 3 years ago
But what is the value of a being a wealthy nation? You're quite correct that reduced working hours wasn't the goal of the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution had no goal, it was a largely spontaneous event with many results, one of which was a push by the labour movement, when faced with increased worker productivity, to shorten working hours and thus improve their lot.
adventurenox 3 years ago
It's not greater efficiency if you are just staying equal with your equally inefficient/low productivity trading partners, and going backward relative to those outside your trading block. If a nation outside your international trading block gets ten times the productive work per annum out of a worker for the same fixed salary that you get, don't you see that that nation will develop and progress a lot faster than your nation? You are setting yourself up for becoming a backward nation.
lastnymleft 3 years ago
It is greater labour effeciency if you understand the goal of society to improve the lives of it's members. You seem to see the economy as some kind of race between nations, which is a valid point of view, but one that I do not share. The question of becoming backward is moot in western democracies where we have the technological know-how to meet all our needs.
adventurenox 3 years ago
I think the problem is that you don't seem to properly appreciate the dynamics of a free market economy. There is no "quandary", as you say. In such a system, those funds are reallocated to better use, seeking profit elsewhere. This is often in solving problems, and developing new products. That is, progressing, and improving universal quality of life.
lastnymleft 3 years ago
You forget that one of the key solutions that I mentioned was a more closed trading system. You state that those funds will be reallocated to better use, but the truth is that those funds will be funneled to the upper strata of society who, by virtue of their position, are ill-equipped to determine what "better use" is for the majority below them. "Universal quality of life" improvements do not only come from material possessions, but as study after study prove, from how we spend our time.
adventurenox 3 years ago
What I've been describing concerning planned obsolescence isn't a theory, it is a policy first proposed in 1932 by Bernard London. Read "Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence." After the economy was vitalized through the demands of increased war and reconstruction production, Brooks Stevens re-popularized the idea as a way of keeping the economy moving at such a hectic pace. A ironic historical note: the US was set to shorten the work week just before Pearl Harbor was attacked.
adventurenox 3 years ago
Capitalism, a fancy word for greed.
American consumerism is a linear system in a finite world. Eventually you come to the end of the line.
Just another empire crumbling under it's own corruption.
Slavesrevolt 3 years ago
Take your money out of the bank and leave the country, we only have a year left. There is no time to throw away. Sadly I'm stuck here but if you can get out, do it now!
davidsghost 3 years ago
As Bush peers out from his bunker, he casts his beleagured eyes around the world, looking for some opportunity to provoke a crisis that will re-stimulate the Heartland's natural militarism--and help the Republicans avoid disaster this fall. Opportunity #1: Iran
Bush: Arrange a "Tonkin Gulf" incident in the Persian Gulf that will justify another war. This could be achieved by ordering US naval destroyers to patrol closer to the Iranian Coast, to provoke a reaction by Iran. Watch for this.
bboucharde 3 years ago
The supreme irony is this: Bush and the NeoCons have mismanaged our domestic and foreign affairs so badly, that they have set in motion the forces they hate the most: Democratic Socialism Collectivism.
Unless Bush and his handlers can manage some kind of Reichstag Fire (without being exposed)before November, we may see (in the next year) a huge advance towards liberalism, populism, and socialism in this country.
Maybe it is time to nationalize Big Oil, Big Banks, etc.
bboucharde 3 years ago 3
God I hope you're right.
Thehappyhippies 3 years ago
Sounds great, I'd march to the beat of that drum.
studio7manga 3 years ago
@bboucharde how's the 'bama doing so far?
NewColdness 1 year ago
@NewColdness Well, the most troubling aspect of Obama's presidency is his massive deficit spending.....In fact, it is terrifying to those who know what it could lead to. Bush wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, too. Military procurement and corruption re: the Iraq War constituted a national scandal. Right now, the biggest threat to the continued existence of this nation is---The federal government.
bboucharde 1 year ago
thanks for the video. great insight
Another good video : the money masters
DonkfestPokerDotCom 3 years ago
I've read lastnymleft comments over and over. I need simplification like this. Where does your presidential candidate fit in this spectrum. Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, or corporatist?
thetimman00 3 years ago
To end this fiasco we've built is to make America more democratic. We need a democratic democracy and not a democratic republic. As it stands now the President, Congress and the Supreme Court is beholden to big business and not to the American people. The laws are made purely from the stand point of who donates to these representatives. The wars are made for the benefit of corporations.
pongman 3 years ago
this ia an idea: its weird but im just going to put it out there. why dont we study, and I mean really study, the social order of certain animal species and maybe look to base certain elementss of our society off of our findings. I think we nedd to get back to our roots, im kinda feelin an Anarcho-primitivism tyoe society with a little bit of collective and a little bit of trade. this system with paper money worth nothing is not working, jus cause the economy is good, doesnt mean the people are
TheMessageStupid 3 years ago
Communism is socialized profits, socialized losses
Socialism is socialized profits, privatized losses
Capitalism is privatized profits, privatized losses
Corporatism is privatized profits, socialized losses
As Benito Mussolini stated during WWII, Fascism would be more appropriately called "Corporatism". Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve's recent bailout of Bear Sterns made it obvious that we are now open Corporatism.
The answer to our probs is not Socialism, but a reversion to *Capitalism*.
lastnymleft 3 years ago 3
Good point regarding corporatism being privatized profits and socialized losses.
JohnNoZ35 3 years ago
JNZ35 - Yes, and now that we are in open fascism (albeit soft-fascism...at this point) where is the outrage? There was hardly a squeak from the CFR-owned/controlled media when the Fed bailed out Bear Sterns, saying "It's too crucial to allow it to collapse". What they have done is worse than allowing multiple collapses at this point, because their actions will make the INEVITABLE crash all the worse. And that's when, with precedent set, we will likely transition from soft-fascism to hard-fascism
lastnymleft 3 years ago
The situation they speak about here is not at all different to the Joad family in The Grapes of Wrath; regarding companies owning generation to generation households.
PersonalJesus348 3 years ago
A true commie... individual property rights need to be "democratized".
varange2 3 years ago
Corporations aren't individuals, and they got most of the property
internationallawman 3 years ago
A true idiot... you are hesitant to democracy. Boy oh Boy.
PersonalJesus348 3 years ago
"Hesitant to democracy"? What is that? I suspect English is your third language.
What on earth is a Personal Jesus anyway?
varange2 3 years ago
For one, a song by Depeche Mode.
djathens2 3 years ago
see I knew we had smart people on here. Its the ones that are too stupid to understand that are perplexed.
PersonalJesus348 3 years ago
A great idea, truly corporations should represent and be accountable to everyone in the society that makes them possible.
studio7manga 3 years ago
studio7manga - Those in society that make corporations possible are called "shareholders", and they HAVE a vote, proportionate to their commitment into the company. What this turkey is talking about is giving people with no skin in the game influence of those that have put their own money at risk. That's a recipe for disaster.
The problem is that we have ventured from capitalism to corporatism, a merger between Big Business and the State, to the detriment of ALL, including small business.
lastnymleft 3 years ago
Shareholders are not the society, if it wasn't for our open liberal values, educated workforce and consumers who purchase products corporations would not be able to operate, it takes a lot more than just financiers to make a corporations successful.
Everyone has skin in the game, we are all one society, make it a proportional representation sure, but make it representational.
Corporatism, more commonly known as Fascism, I agree. Though pure capitalism can't exist, & Laisser faire is bad news.
studio7manga 3 years ago
Educated workers get paid for their time, consumers get product for their money. To suggest that someone is getting something for nothing, or the balance is not right, is simply not correct. Where you may have argument is in the socialization of operational costs, and of losses ie the difference between Corporatism and Capitalism. Pure capitalism and Laisse faire capitalism CAN exist, IF the STATE does what it should: defend property rights, enforce contracts, and not interfere. It hasn't been.
lastnymleft 3 years ago
yes but something like 10% of people have 90% of the shares in the world. This is not democratic, it's plutocratic.
COAnews 3 years ago
No, a plutocracy would not allow you to own the shares. YOU *and everybody else* can buy shares - THAT is democratic.
lastnymleft 3 years ago
If I pit you against a 500 pound heavy weight boxer and ask you to fight to the death, then when you protest I point out that both of you have muscles and skeletons and boxing gloves so therefore you are both equally capable of landing punches, do you shrug and say "oh well I guess it's fair after all."
Now just take that analogy and replace the 500 pound boxer with a born in multi-millionaire. Is the system fair?
To say the system we have now is a perfect end state is overly optimistic.
studio7manga 3 years ago
I didn't say the system we have now is a perfect end state. We're in Corporatism, which is horrific. We need to get back to Capitalism, for starters
You used a poor analogy.
1- Businesses compete for customers, not against each other directly. Small companies CAN win, if Gov't doesn't slant table.
2- Parents passing wealth to their children is a lot more just than you being able to vote to send someone (albeit with a government badge) with a gun to steal from me, which is what you are proposing
lastnymleft 3 years ago
I would suggest that something along the lines of Anarcho-syndicalism & Participatory economics would be a more effective economic system in the raising up of all individuals than the one we have now.
studio7manga 3 years ago
I don't believe Capitalism is the best system possible, either. But I believe that out of Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, and Corporatism, it is the best, by far
Abrogation of power to the unions is not a good way to go, either. It's just more of the same, but with a different partner.
Work up your ideas, stick an -ism on the end, and publish it with a "Manifesto" in the title. I would buy a copy.
I've been working on my own, for some years now. It's like Capitalism 2.0. Better is possible
lastnymleft 3 years ago
Participatory economics isn't really any of the above economic models, perhaps it could be simply part of the well regulated market in a Capitalism 2.0 society. Generally I feel more democracy and more public involvement in policy is bound to have positive effects, assuming the public is well educated and informed, which at present it isn't.
"Work up your ideas...I would buy a copy."
Heheh, I'm a loooong way from that fine day but I'm trying. Same goes for you as well. Progress is the key.
studio7manga 3 years ago
"well regulated market" - Whoah! I never said that should be part of Capitalism 2.0. It is exactly that that has allowed Big Business to merge with Big Government, to turn Capitalism into Corporatism. Like these BS "free trade" agreements that are, in fact, managed trade agreements. Free trade requires a one-page document: "Each Government should stay the hell out of it". NAFTA, CAFTA, have THOUSANDS of pages, benefiting mega-Corporations.
We must end corporate welfare, corporate bailouts, etc.
lastnymleft 3 years ago
Well in the case of participatory economics it would be the people themselves doing the regulating. We'd just need a basic structure to get a little bit of organization, the internet might help with that, a consumer forum site of sorts maybe. In the mean time you can check the wikipedia article about participatory economics. It's interesting, I don't buy all of it but there's a lot of good ideas in it.
"We must end corporate welfare, corporate bailouts, etc."
Agreed.
studio7manga 3 years ago
"parecon, is a proposed economic system that uses participatory decision making as an economic mechanism to guide the production, consumption and allocation of resources in a given society" - People ALREADY do that! They vote with their dollars. What you're proposing is that people that AREN'T prepared to vote with their dollars should get a say, or those that do only a little bit should get a disproportionate say. Either way is unjust and will inevitably lead to inefficiencies and malinvestment
lastnymleft 3 years ago
Not everyone has dollars to vote with, and there is more to the economy than buying things, this covers things like economic impact, something that theoretically effects everyone.
studio7manga 3 years ago
Hence my first response, where I said you could legitimately argue against the socialization of operating costs, etc. But those issues can be dealt with within the framework of capitalism, *free* markets, and private property. You should read up on Ron Paul's environmental policies. At first blush it appears "weak" (or did to me), but it's really quite sophisticated, and would work well. It just doesn't sell as a 30 second sound-bite. He's a thinking man's candidate. Unfortunately, few do now.
lastnymleft 3 years ago
I'll look into that, I was going to say something about the potential pitfalls of deregulation but I'm not in the mood at the moment, maybe tomorrow night.
studio7manga 3 years ago
studio7manga - This was the interview I was thinking of, when I made that comment about Ron Paul's environmental policy:
grist. org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/
lastnymleft 3 years ago
There aren't many people in America without sufficient funds to vote for the things that they *need* - food, clothing, shelter. Plenty still buy cars, whitegoods and other electricals, etc., in excess of the bare necessities. They vote on what affects them.
The problem is the merger between Big Business and Big Government, and is what needs to be attacked. As they are acting as one, increasing the power of one increases the power of the other. Calling for "more regulation" only feeds the beast.
lastnymleft 3 years ago
well... why are they doing this?
SCX2k 3 years ago