Screw 'em if they hate us
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 09:13
VIEWED: 19860
PAGE 19 of 30
Quote:No it does not.
capitalism does well is the distribution of goods and services
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
That's about the clearest I've heard this conundrum expressed. That's what I've been trying to ask Frem, Sarge, Geezer and 6ix. Maybe your wording will make it clearer.
It also makes no sense how some want to regulate government, a large group of people with the means to supercede the individual, that in a democracy has a vested interest to lookout for the needs of the people, while removing regulation of corporations, large groups of people with the means to supercede the individual, that have a vested interest in screwing everyone else over for the needs of their share holders. Where is the logic in curbing the power of government, but giving free reign to corporations?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Capitalism isn't the only system that functions well there, in fact nations had functioning economies thousands of years before Capitalism was invented. Capitalism where corporations are given free reign doesn't work well in this regard either, in my opinion, since the best profits will be made by making whatever the hell you want, and convincing the populace that that is what they want, through advertising and other subconscious means.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The other, complimentary, thing that capitalism does well is the distribution of goods and services. This is the lesson that Soviet economic planners learned very painfully. It turns out that central planning of an economy is prohibitively difficult. Anticipating the needs and desires of a nation's population is the essential function of any economic system and it's extremely difficult to do effectively. It requires nearly omniscient awareness of the needs of every household in the nation. It's by far more effective to delegate such decisions to a distributed network of entities dedicated to making such forecasts. And the best way to encourage accuracy in such forecasts is to reward accuracy in accordance with it's effectiveness. That's the core function of capitalism.
I have a big screen TV, thus I am fulfilled.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Capitalism where corporations are given free reign doesn't work well in this regard either, in my opinion, since the best profits will be made by making whatever the hell you want, and convincing the populace that that is what they want, through advertising and other subconscious means.
Ayup. Although 'free' reign isn't the problem. It's that we give them the reigns outright.
I'm not sure how many corporations would survive without the special legal exceptions and status that we grant them, or what form such companies would take if they did. But this is the part of modern capitalism that's made it anything but a 'free' market. In my opinion capitalism doesn't require such artifice and when it does include such perks is more properly labeled 'corporatism'.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:That's about the clearest I've heard this conundrum expressed. That's what I've been trying to ask Frem, Sarge, Geezer and 6ix. Maybe your wording will make it clearer.
It also makes no sense how some want to regulate government, a large group of people with the means to supercede the individual, that in a democracy has a vested interest to lookout for the needs of the people, while removing regulation of corporations, large groups of people with the means to supercede the individual, that have a vested interest in screwing everyone else over for the needs of their share holders. Where is the logic in curbing the power of government, but giving free reign to corporations?
Signy, I think I've been abundantly clear. I don't think modern corporate law should exist. If such a thing as a 'publicly' held corporation exists at all it should follow the same rules and be subject to the same liabilities as privately owned companies. That means it's owners - every one of it's shareholders - are responsible for the actions of that company. If they don't want that risk, better not buy stock. It also means the corps pay the same taxes and follow all of the same laws as their private kin.
The implications of giving such special status to corporations, and the unavoidable way that it ties these companies up with government, is the poison that makes modern capitalism what it is. I'm not sure you've ever really acknowledged it, perhaps because it doesn't line up with your narrative of what's going on, but it's the intimate relationship that corporate law forges between business and government that is the problem. Free reign would be fine, as long as they are required to follow the same rules as the rest of us. Instead, what we've given them is a government backed charter to act as independent client states without territory, and without explicit responsibilities other than to generate profits for their "citizens" (shareholders) through any means necessary.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It also makes no sense how some want to regulate government, a large group of people with the means to supercede the individual, that in a democracy has a vested interest to lookout for the needs of the people, while removing regulation of corporations, large groups of people with the means to supercede the individual, that have a vested interest in screwing everyone else over for the needs of their share holders. Where is the logic in curbing the power of government, but giving free reign to corporations?
Pretty much what Sarge said, neither one should get a free pass, and the incestous Gov-Corp relationship needs to go, it's as bad or worse than melding Church and State.
I've said this many times, many ways, only to be ignored or told I said something else, as usual, so there's not been a lot to discuss - but fine, I'll waste a couple minutes on it despite the fact I know it's a waste to even try.
The natural check and balance on corporations WOULD have been trade unions and other employee collectives but since 1905 they have been systematically gutted, eviscerated and completely disempowered by not only the corporations but the corp-friendly gov as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes
Just how many times HAVE I posted that huge list of strikes and then pointed out that the gov always, always, ALWAYS came in on the corp side, requiring the trade unions to engage and defeate not only the corporate goons, but the entire military might of the whole united states in order to accomplish their objective, something clearly both impossible, and damn dangerous if it were because at that point, why NOT simply take over ?
Add in shit like the palmer raids, the demonisation of all union allies (communists, socialists, anarchists) two "red scares" which had more to do with smashing the threat of unions and political power than any real threat, and a hundred fucking years of emasculation and demonisation, on top of corp-friendly 'unions' created and run by the corps themselves as a goddamn control rod on the reactor of dissent...
(an idea, btw, thought up by Rockefeller after a hard day of his goons machinegunning about 20 folk, half of them children, in Ludlow.)
Not all unions even try serve the purposes of the worker, in fact the AFL under that fucker Gompers, who, mind you sold even his own out for a nice cushy cabinet appointment by Wilson, not only absorbed then effectively neutralised other unions, they used to BREAK strikes of the IWW under the guise of "patriotism" and "supporting the war effort" and golly gee, doesn't THAT fucking bullshit excuse sound so familiar these days ?
And as a final coda you've got the simplistic tactic of the corps simply having their gov buddies outlaw any tactic that actually ever worked, and so you're down to what ?
Feed the fear and paranoia by actually COMMITTING what could be termed terrorist acts*, or bend over and take it - that's pretty much the choices left at this point because the very folks who would need to support and finance those reforms are the very folks who benefit from the lack thereof, you really think they're gonna execute that golden goose after a hundred years of protecting it and fattening it up ?
And no bones about it, it WILL come to violence no matter what methods are used, just take a good look at what happened to the attempted peaceful protest of the FTAA in florida for a good preview of just how nasty that would get even with NO resistance on behalf of the striking personnel, which, if it were any of ours would be a damned unlikely occurance, nobody likes being shot at, especially us.
And let's not even discuss the endless fucking surveillence, harassment and attempted agent infiltration by both gov and corp provacateurs...
Frankly, the one and overriding primary reason at this time for the recalcitrance of even the IWW is the plain and simple FACT that there's just no way to DO this without potentially, even probably, initiating our own total destruction by poking a big, frustrated, rabid beast in th
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My point was only that you should regulate through law both government and Corporations, and that those regulations should be punitive toward those organisations, rather than the other thing. Grouped organisations have power over the individual, that can only be redressed through societal mechanisms, I.E. laws.
Solution? Make separation of Corporation and State as enshrined in law as that of Church and state (actually it'll probably be best to make it more enshrined...). I'd go as far as making political campaigns a solely publicly funded affair, that way it'll be illegal if a candidate takes private money, ensuring no under the table lobbying through that route. I really see no reason why people should need to make private contributions to individuals or even specific parties anyway.
I really can't fathom where this idea (I'm not accusing anyone in particular of expressing this idea, but it is one I have heard expressed) that regulations are bad comes from. Especially since it's often espoused by those who want to hamstring Government with regulation itself. Regulated business is a good thing, business does not self regulate. Corporations break the laws now, when there are laws to break, why on Earth would they suddenly stop when there are no consequences for their actions? To me it sounds like saying people will stop committing murders, if we just stopped charging people with murder. Historically, having no regulation and allowing businesses to do as they please, buyer beware, doesn't work at all. A strong example is the unregulated food industry of Victorian England. Regulations were added because the fully open and unregulated markets were full of fast-buck anything for profit merchants that thought nothing of selling children boot lacquer as Toffee, and mixing lead with flour. Regulations stopped that, not wishful thinking and market forces.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There are an infinite numbers of ways and rationales to do those things - as many as the human mind can come up with and every shade and multiple combination of them. None is more or less natural law than the other. So it comes down to what you want to end up with.
I want to end up with an FMRI machine. Give me an example of a non-corporate, non-capitalist system that's around now that can make me an FMRI.
Quote:
When I think about the old USSR what I think is that everyone may have had small apartments but there were no homeless, everyone may have been educated in the same system but they all went to school, everyone may have had a small choice in luxury foods but there were no starving.
Yep. And all you had to do was give up your freedom to do, say, think, own, read or listen to anything the government said you couldn't - with the gulag waiting for you if you tried. Then again, if you lived in the wrong place, or were the wrong ethnic group, the government might just decide to starve you, your family, and everyone else for the greater good of the State.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hunh. I've believed this for a long time but was never able to word it so simply and clearly. Thanks cit!
Originally posted by citizen:
Solution? Make separation of Corporation and State as enshrined in law as that of Church and state
Really, most of the ills facing the US today, from Iraq to oil prices to medical care to housing - even to poverty and crime - can be blamed at least in part on how corporations run the government. And I don't think the Republicans must be defeated because of their conservative principles - many of those I agree with - but because the party is owned by big business, much more so than the Dems.
BTW - that's why I like Ron Paul despite some of his oddities, like how he doesn't believe in evolution. He's all for separation of corporation and state. Even if he stays on the side, he's brought these ideas up for discussion, and that's huge.
I do have some hopes for Obama, although the whole funding thing is worrisome...
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Fortunately for them, they all realized it was 50% bullsh*t.
Yep. And all you had to do was give up your freedom to do, say, think, own, read or listen to anything the government said you couldn't
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME