Limits of State Power
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 24 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Ownership of the factory is a legal concept. If the government doesn't recognize their property rights - well, they can say it's their factory, but honestly it's owned by whomever is strong enough to take it.
Even if you assume that the factory "owners" can maintain control of their factory without government (which is stretch), how's this "production" going to happen? It's not like production is a commodity that can be hoarded. It's an activity. If their money is no good, they can't hire people to do the production, to run the machines, etc.
If their money is no good they'll barter. By virtue of having, already in their possession, these foundations of economic power, they're going to be the ones strong enough to hold on to it. At any rate your still looking at it from one side, and even when I show you the other you refuse to see it. The Government wouldn't have any political power to 'grant' all these things, without the economic power supporting it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's interesting to me that the US concerns about government (based on your history) is not shared by a lot of other countries (mine included). It's interesting because we have no Bill of Rights or a constitution like yours to protect us, and yet we don't live in a dictatorship. Under the Westminster System there are no limits to what laws can be introduced, and yet the system itself which contains checks and balances prevents us from spiralling into some awful(er) form of government.
I have no problem with nationalisation of certain industries, in fact I think some things work better with a government at least overseeing it. Somethings don't work well profit based - I'd put healthcare in that one, along with water in this country at least.
On the other hand, I want some limits on the laws that governments can make. I'd prefer there to be less of the nanny state stuff, but I don't see it as a slippery slide to dictatorship, just unnecessary.
Like Signy and others, I worry about any type of organisation that has too much power. At least we can turf elected representatives in elections, at least they are scrutinised, unlike a lot of businesses. It's the corporate world that holds the real power in this world, in my view, particularly financial institutions and those bodies governing them. Governments just bend over and take it when it comes to representing corporate interests over the their constituents, and in reality have very little power to make any significant change.
So in other words, Serg, I want government to have less control over personal decisions that I make that affect myself..who I marry or have relationships with, whether I carry a child to term or not, whether to smoke or take drugs. I think we should be responsible for ourselves and our own families, but I think the provision of a good healthcare and education system will benefit everyone. I think there should be a welfare net, but some mutual obligation for using it. I don't care whether governments own corporations, as long as they don't own everything and the economy works okay.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The economic PTB could cut governments out at any time... that IS the direction they're heading in.
I'm not sure GM, Chrysler, or the companies forced to limit executive pay because they were coerced into taking TARP funds would agree with this conclusion.
I'd bet that the employees at the GM and Chrysler dealerships closed at the government's insistance, now un-employed (and possibly starving), wish the economic PTB could tell the government to butt out.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ah - So when Obama moves to exert more government control over business, when he says we need to have a redistribution of wealth, when he says we need universal health care, and all the right-wing nut-jobs start screaming "SOCIALIST!" - what they REALLY mean is, "See? I told you he was a capitalist! He just endorsed capitalism!"
Right?
Sweet. I knew he wasn't really a socialist. Obama's win must surely be seen as a victory for capitalists everywhere; I'm sure Geezer would agree wholeheartedly.
Mike
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money... and more must be printed by government idiots. He knows no country has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity.
1) You'll note for the record that I just endorsed Obama as a CAPITALIST, not a socialist. So did Geezer, although I don't think he thinks so...
2) Duh. No country has ever BORROWED AND SPENT its way to prosperity either. Do you suppose Bush knew this before he tried it?
Quote:
More on this subject :
" Why has this become such an important topic? Because the current administration's economic strategy could create the greatest economic disaster in recorded history.
Or, in other words, the worst economic disaster since the previous administration...
Quote:
Not only is the administration planning on enormous deficit spending this year, but the current plan calls for increasing deficit spending for the next decade – spending that will more than double our entire national debt during Obama's presidency. At the same time, Obama plans to extend federal control over vast and critical sections of our economy, promulgating new and extensive rules and taxes over both the power industry and the health care business.
Go back and read that through again, only substitute "Bush" for "Obama", and see if anything changes. Oddly, when it was "the other guy" doing the exact same shit, many people seemed to have no problem with it.
Quote:
The government will pay for this debt by increasing taxes and inflating away the value of our currency. This will create a disaster in the coming years. I can't tell you when it will happen... but I can tell you it will happen. That's why it's critical you take precautions right now."
1) Are you sure we can't "tax cut" our way out of this? Isn't that what conservatives normally recommend as the solution to massive deficits?
2) How long have you been saying "I can't tell you when, but I can tell you it will happen." I can say the same thing of "The Big One" hitting California, but that doesn't really help unless you can narrow down the timeframe a bit...
Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree with any particular point, O2B. In fact, if you'll go back and read my posts with an eye towards sarcasm and snark, you might find that I actually agree with you - but I do have to wonder where the people were who so vigorously disagree with Obama's policies when the previous administration was doing THE EXACT SAME THINGS.
As for myself, I'm becoming more and more disappointed with Obama; he had the chance to try to DO something in his first hundred days, and he basically pissed it away.
But don't take that as any kind of endorsement of McCain/Palin; I am still convinced that they'd have been even worse.
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The government hasn't insisted on anything; except that if these companies want government money they must come up with a reorganization plan. Otherwise, they can go the bankruptcy route, which is the typical way of dealing with insolvent companies.
I'd bet that the employees at the GM and Chrysler dealerships closed at the government's insistance
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have to take issue with the idea that printing more money will create inflation. Everyone seems to be fixated on the number of dollars floating around in the economy, as if that was the only source of capital. But every time you have a bubble- whether than bubble is in real estate or tulip bulbs- that bubble itself adds money to the money supply by creating "value" on which consumption can be based. Once that debt is turned to consumption it behaves just real money. In other words- bubbles behave just like an increase in "real money" by creating an alternate source of circulating capital.
So the housing and stock bubbles had already created inflation. That's why oil and other commodity prices peaked so high and have since fallen. The inflation has come and gone my friends. The collapsing bubble has shrunk circulating capital. Unless Obama pumps as many OR MORE dollars into the economy as the value lost, the money supply will remain shriveled and the resulting economy will be deflationary. Right now, the total lost real estate value is $4 trillion in 2008. About 1/6 homeowners are underwater, that represents about a $0.7 trillion loss to the lending institutions. Since they leveraged that money somewhere between X25-X35 (say X30 on average) we're talking roughly $20 TRILLION evaporating out of circulation.
Is Obama printing $20 trillion? I don't think so. The math is too complex for me, there are too many assumptions that would have to go into a real accounting of how much circulating capital was based on real estate values, how much disappeared and how much Obama is replacing, but the point is that he is replacing capital that had already been created and lost.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
I have to take issue with the idea that printing more money will create inflation.
Printing more money makes each individual dollar worthless. The concept is that if you have 100 Units of currency in circulation today, and 200 tomorrow, tomorrow you won't have created wealth, you would have split the wealth among a greater number of units, so that each individual unit is actually worth half of what it was worth yesterday.
The 'worth' of currency is proportional to it's scarcity if you like. If it's very scarce it'll buy more, if it's very common it'll buy less. It's the same reason gold is worth more than wood, because wood, *ahem* grows on trees, while gold doesn't.
Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
Everyone seems to be fixated on the number of dollars floating around in the economy, as if that was the only source of capital.
It's the only source of the Dollar. If you have more of them each one will be worth less, there's no way of getting around that.
Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
But every time you have a bubble- whether than bubble is in real estate or tulip bulbs- that bubble itself adds money to the money supply by creating "value" on which consumption can be based. Once that debt is turned to consumption it behaves just real money. In other words- bubbles behave just like an increase in "real money" by creating an alternate source of circulating capital.
You seem to be getting confused between an asset bubble and inflation/deflation. The latter is where money becomes worth more or less, so prices go up or down, while the former is where the asset value (price) of a commodity expands beyond it's intrinsic value, this is devoid of the worth of the underlying currency, which sets the intrinsic value. The biggest difference is that inflation changes the cost of all intrinsic values, and as long as the money supply keeps in step with inflation it has no real punitive effect on the economy. A bubble will always reset, meaning a rapid devaluation of the asset, which will harm anyone who bought high as they've made a loss.
Strictly to Oil prices, those weren't really a matter of inflation or even a bubble. Oil is a commodity, it's not like stocks or shares, because once you've bought it and used it it doesn't matter if it devalues. With shares you're buying and selling the same shares, so it's bad if they devalue, but with oil you're buying a selling different barrels, so it makes little odds. The actual reasons for the price spike are different to the credit crunch as well. Oil is bought on a futures market, so if you buy and sell oil, you're not buying barrels of Oil that now exist, you're buying Oil that's expected to come out of the ground in the future. That means if there's a possibility that production of Oil will be hurt, the price goes up as it's a greater risk to sell it (because you might not be able to fulfil your commitment).
At the time there were growing tensions with Iran, which could have lead to another armed conflict in the Middle East, and Georgia (a country with a major oil pipeline in progress) was being invaded by Russia. Oil is a major commodity, and also the basis of the fuel we use to shuttle other commodities about. That is if the price of Oil goes up, other commodities go up because they're partly dependent on the price of oil.
The big point is, that no capital has been lost in the credit crunch. There's still as much money in the system now as there was before. The difference is that it's no longer moving around.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Ah - So when Obama moves to exert more government control over business, when he says we need to have a redistribution of wealth, when he says we need universal health care, and all the right-wing nut-jobs start screaming "SOCIALIST!" - what they REALLY mean is, "See? I told you he was a capitalist! He just endorsed capitalism!"
Right?
Mike
No country has ever BORROWED AND SPENT its way to prosperity either. Do you suppose Bush knew this before he tried it?
Quote:
More on this subject :
" Why has this become such an important topic? Because the current administration's economic strategy could create the greatest economic disaster in recorded history."
Not only is the administration planning on enormous deficit spending this year, but the current plan calls for increasing deficit spending for the next decade – spending that will more than double our entire national debt during Obama's presidency. At the same time, Obama plans to extend federal control over vast and critical sections of our economy, promulgating new and extensive rules and taxes over both the power industry and the health care business.
Go back and read that through again, only substitute "Bush" for "Obama", and see if anything changes. Oddly, when it was "the other guy" doing the exact same shit, many people seemed to have no problem with it.Quote:
The government will pay for this debt by increasing taxes and inflating away the value of our currency. This will create a disaster in the coming years. I can't tell you when it will happen... but I can tell you it will happen. That's why it's critical you take precautions right now."
1) Are you sure we can't "tax cut" our way out of this? Isn't that what conservatives normally recommend as the solution to massive deficits?
2) How long have you been saying "I can't tell you when, but I can tell you it will happen." I can say the same thing of "The Big One" hitting California, but that doesn't really help unless you can narrow down the timeframe a bit...
Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree with any particular point, O2B. In fact, if you'll go back and read my posts with an eye towards sarcasm and snark, you might find that I actually agree with you - but I do have to wonder where the people were who so vigorously disagree with Obama's policies when the previous administration was doing THE EXACT SAME THINGS.
As for myself, I'm becoming more and more disappointed with Obama; he had the chance to try to DO something in his first hundred days, and he basically pissed it away.
Mike
Doesn't matter what the puppets are named , what really matters is for Folk to put down their old partisan arguments and begin discovering what is really going on...
I wish you'd bring back your 1984 'blueprint' quote...Because , given the current geopolitical situation , it's becoming more true by the day...
The following may be boring , but sometimes the truth is not so much 'exciting' , as it is just 'scary'...
Know What Is Happening To You , And WHY...
PART 1
PART 2
If you cannot manage to watch , at least give a good listen...
WHILE YOU STILL CAN .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:Quote:The government hasn't insisted on anything; except that if these companies want government money they must come up with a reorganization plan. Otherwise, they can go the bankruptcy route, which is the typical way of dealing with insolvent companies.
I'd bet that the employees at the GM and Chrysler dealerships closed at the government's insistance
From what I've been reading of the government's involvement with GM and Chrysler reorganization plans, Treasury Department "advisors" have been involved every step of the way, letting the companies know which actions would be acceptable to the government, and which wouldn't. I doubt the carmakers would have taken such a big step without getting the OK from these advisors. I read in the business section of the Washington Post today that the government actually wanted GM to close 2,000 dealerships.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Doesn't matter what the puppets are named , what really matters is for Folk to put down their old partisan arguments and begin discovering what is really going on...
Agreed.
Quote:
I wish you'd bring back your 1984 'blueprint' quote...Because , given the current geopolitical situation , it's becoming more true by the day...
Watch this space... I didn't write that sig line because I thought it was a passing fad, and watching The New Boss behave more and more like The Old Boss is doing nothing to assuage my fears.
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME