The Global Crisis of American Capitalism

Thom talks to Kevin Phillips, author of Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism, and asks how did we get here and how do we fix it? http://www.bad-money.com. Check out http://www.thomhartmann.com.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Thom
• Hartmann
• Kevin
• Phillips
• Economy
• Economics
• Recession
• Depression
• TARP
• Wall
• Street
• Bank
• Bail
• Out
• Finance
• Capitalism
• Laissez
• Faire
• Socialism
• progressive
• talk
• radio
• liberal
• Air
• America
• Radio
• AIG
• Lehmen
• Brothers
• Goldman
• Sachs
• George
• Bush
• Barack
• Obama
• Larry
• Summers
• Timothy
• Geithner
• Federal
• Reserve
• Fractional
• Banking
• debt
• deficit
• US
• Treasury
• taxes
• protectionism
• tariffs
• free
• trade
• China
• corporate
• outsourcing
• off
• shoring

[TheAlienGod]

I hate it when people confuse Capitalism with CORPORATISM!

[atrickpay11]

starman: no, not at all. Neoliberals don't support free-markets. They support State-monopoly-capitalism.

True free-market advocates like me are actually voluntaryists (we oppose all government).

[alvagoldbook2]

simple question: is EVERYTHING capital?

[maskedphrogg]

@alvagoldbook2

Still setting up strawmen and knocking them down.

Yes, trees are capital well before anyone even picks up a stick. Thousands of years before Man was putting logs in the lathe to make axe handles he was simply dropping sticks into the fire to stoke it. I'm growing weary of knocking down your non sequiturs. You seem to think I'm arguing that labor does not add value. That premise is wholly wrong and I have already argued against it.

[alvagoldbook2]

@maskedphrogg This is why I asked YOU to define capital. You can take some lumber and turn it into an axe handle. Does that mean that back when we were cavemen that trees were capital? The concept of capital itself did not exist until the concept of ownership existed. If you have no ownership, you cannot have capitalism. To own anything you would have to take it from others. To take it from others labor is required.

[maskedphrogg]

@alvagoldbook2

If you would quit redefining words depending on what you want them to mean at the moment you use them then you would not be so confused.

Capital goods exist whether you like it or not. Some capital goods are simple resources whether you like it or not. Those resources exist with or without your intervention. I can readily see you are trying to come to a predetermined conclusion. Good luck with that, logic doesn't work backwards. Causes bring about effects not vice versa.

[alvagoldbook2]

@maskedphrogg Well, how are you defining "capital"? For capital to exist prior to labor being applied, then that would mean that capitalism would have to exist prior to work. I don't think that is correct. Capital is an abstract idea being applied to real things. Work has existed since the dawn of the species.

[maskedphrogg]

@alvagoldbook2

Scroll up. I've answered that question already.

[alvagoldbook2]

@maskedphrogg Well, we may be getting into a chicken or the egg argument, but let me ask you...did any capital exist prior to labor being applied? Could capital have originated without labor?

[maskedphrogg]

@alvagoldbook2

What I said was that the idea that labor exists prior to capital is rubbish. Capital assets *must* exist or there is nothing to labor over. What you are arguing is that labor adds value to capital and thus exists first. Basically you are putting the cart before the horse and expecting the horse to draw it anyway. Labor does produce value, you will get no argument from me claiming otherwise. But capital exists w/o the need for labor at all.