Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Disaster Capitalism Hits Europe (and the US is Next)
Eurozone governments and European authorities are using the economy to justify pushing through rightwing policy changes
One thing should be made clear about the situation in the eurozone economies that is not clear at all if we rely on most of the news reports. This is not a situation where countries face a "dilemma" because they have overspent and piled up too much public debt. They do not face "tough choices" that will force them to cut spending and raise taxes while the economy is weak or in recession, in order to "satisfy financial markets".
What is really going on is that powerful interests within these countries - including Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal - are taking advantage of the situation to make the changes that they want. Perhaps even more importantly, the European authorities - including the European commission, the European central bank and the IMF - who are holding the purse strings of any bailout funds, are even more committed than the national governments to rightwing policy changes. And they are further removed from any accountability to any electorate.
In 13 Bankers, by Simon Johnson (a former chief economist at the IMF) and James Kwak, the authors describe the emerging market crises of the 1990s and note that Washington used them to promote changes that it wanted: "When an existing economic elite has led a country into a deep crisis, it is time for a change. And the crisis itself presents a unique, but short-lived opportunity for change." Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine, provides an excellent history of how crises have been used to introduce or consolidate regressive and unpopular economic "reforms".
This is what is happening in the eurozone economies right now, although the "crisis" is considerably exaggerated in most of them. Spain is a good example. The story that Spain got into a mess because of government overspending is not supported by the data. Spain reduced its gross debt-to-GDP ratio sharply as the economy grew from 2000-2007, from 59 to 36% of GDP, and was running budget surpluses in the three years prior to the 2008 crash. The crash was triggered by the collapse of a large housing bubble in Spain, as well as the bursting of a big stock market bubble: the value of stocks plunged from 125% of GDP in November 2007 to 54% of GDP a year later. The collapse of each of these bubbles had a huge impact in reducing private spending. The world recession added more external shocks to the Spanish economy.
Spain now has just €61bn of debt coming due this year; the European authorities could cover this very easily if they wanted to avoid the potential for rising interest rates on Spain's debt. Without a sharp rise in interest rates, Spain's debt is quite manageable, since they started with a net debt of just 45.8% of GDP in 2009, and interest payments of just 1.8% of GDP. (Most news reports use the country's gross debt, but net debt is a better measure. The gross debt includes debt that is held by the government itself, so the interest payments on this debt accrue to the government and therefore do not add to the country's debt burden.)
Of course, Spain is running a large central government budget deficit of about 9% of GDP this year, and this cannot go on indefinitely. But it won't: the deficit will mostly shrink through the reverse process of how it got there: as the economy grows, tax revenues will rise, spending on "automatic stabilisers" such as unemployment compensation will decrease, and the debt will fall relative to the economy, which is what matters. It makes no sense to cut spending and raise taxes now, while the economy is still very weak, inflation is negative and there is serious risk of lapsing back into recession.
Unless the goal is to reduce wages and benefits in the public sector, weaken labour, redistribute income upward and reduce the size of government, then there is no time like the present to push these things through. We have a similar, although not yet as severe political problem, in the United States: deficit hawks are mounting a campaign to cut social security, even though it can make all promised payments for the next 33 years.
Ironically, the people who want to take advantage of the "crisis" in Spain are actually increasing the risk of more serious debt problems, since the debt burden will rise if the economy lapses into recession or years of stagnation because of their fiscal tightening measures. But they are willing to take these risks in order to accomplish their political objectives.
174 Comments so far
Show AllUnions will have to grow exponentially if we're to witness any sort of mass resistance to the further right wing hyper-neoliberal economic policies of international bankers and institutionalized financial heads like the IMF.
I fail to see how this could occur in a rapid fashion because of the level of discontent with unions and bureaucracy in general all around the world, and also the lack of global solidarity and the disappearance of international trade unions.
We need political parties linked with unions, community organizations and other leftist organizations. Thats what we need especially in the US. A workers party. A party that can mobilize a general strike and shut down an entire country within the matter of minutes. We need this now if we're to avert a catastrophic crisis like climate change, mass hunger, war, etc.
This author speaks of "disaster capitalism" as if there's some other form of capitalism in existence that is not as bad. What we all need to realize is that the capitalist economy is INCAPABLE of fulfilling the needs of the masses of people. Capitalism couldn't do it even if it wanted to. So whats the solution? The only alternative is to overthrow capitalism and establish a system of mass participatory democracy both political and economic that can then manage and transform society on the principles of freedom, justice, and equality. We don't have to call it socialism, communism, or anarchism. Just call it a free society.
I heard one of the endless gaggle of rightwing radioers say some compay moved from Michigan to South Carolina because the unions did not exist and tax breaks were much greater.
It never occured to this doofus that the move was made simply to make more money, and that if the Southern workers would offer up their labor for free, well that would be ideal.
I believe a great proportion of the USA has now been taught to think this way (it's all the unions' fault), and that the number will do nothing but continue to swell.
Simply look at the States that are doing well and are NOT in trouble and all your questions will be answered.
The idea that "Southern" workers would work for free while the magnificent Northen Union workers only work for "just" wages is certainly a novel one.
Yes, and what would those rightwing radio hosts and callers say about the US losing industry to Canada because of its health care? (I heard someone call into Lou Dobbs today complaining about Obama trying to turn us into a "socialist" nation- these people are unbelievably uninformed.)
I also keep hearing that education has been destroyed by teachers' unions. I was not a union member, not that it would have done me any good because I was laid off after one year in education-- and I hear a lot of teachers are being let go before they can get tenure. There are a number of variables as to why education has declined, but I wouldn't blame everything on the union, which is what the public is mistakenly doing.
Though the Teachers Unions do indeed bear a great share of guilt in the decline of our educational system, They have plenty of company and only fools would blame it all on them.
The largest mistake made today is to equate Teachers Unions with Teachers themselves. They are NOT one and the same.
"...only fools would blame it all on them."
And that may be one of my points about the large numbers of Americans who view Fox News and listen to rightwing radio, the same people who think Obama is leading us down the road to Socialism.
Tell me about it!
I just got off the phone with one of my right wing (makes Atilla look socialist) friends screaming at me about what IObama has given the Illegal ASliens, all that free health care, etc. This is a Fox freak and listens to radio all day as he is out working.
It was my privilage to tell him that the CHIPS Peri-natal program that Illegal Alien women use to gain free pre natal care and free entrance into the hospital for free births, the CHIPS allowance of illegal alien children to use it for medical care, the expansion of food stamps to illegal alien children + medicaid he was screaming about were NOT put in by Obama, but were put in under Bush.
I don't mind if someone disagrees with my opinon or has different politics or beliefs, but for Gods sake if you are going to gripe/complain or accuse about something.....at least get the facts correct.
I must confess that telling him that gave me a little glow deep down! Shame on me.
"...these people are unbelievably uninformed."
You are a Master of Understatement.
Boy does this author get it wrong on the title. Disaster capitalism already hit the US and it has yet to disappear. As for hitting Europe, the impact will likely be less compared to the US as I have already discussed this in the past. I still believe that unlike the US, the people in those nations will put up a tough fight and prevail.
The problem is not just debt, its obligations that must be paid out every month and year. Its the aggregate total that is the problem and their capitalist economies can no longer keep up. Spending more than they earn and can borrow in other words.
You are correct, this author has it wrong...period.
Its hitting Europe like a sledgehammer. We are in far better shape that most European countries because of our currency at least. And thanks to Bush and Obama, we are in trouble.
"Disaster Capitalism" is old thinking.
...a couple of points...article authors don't always get to pick the headline in a newspaper, generally an editor does this, I believe. I don't see European nation's obligations as a particular problem. If economies should remain stagnant, temporary cuts in entitlements could fix the problem.
"a couple of points...article authors don't always get to pick the headline in a newspaper, generally an editor does this"
Very true. And many times, much to the embarrassment of the author. point taken.
I shouldn't limit this to Europe as a matter of fact. Its endemic in Europe, China, Japan and a number of other countries. We are included, though our open immigration doors ease the problem for us.
You have aging populations with birthrates far below replacement rates. Many like Europe have obligated themselves to provide very liberal health care services, early retirement ages, vast social services of one kind or another. Employment policies that extend much free time, etc.
"temporary cuts in entitlements could fix the problem"
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the numbers and demographics tell me I'm not. Though they could still be a decade or more from total collapse of the benefit systems. And they have been modifying for a few years now. Withdrawing benefits, excluding illegal aliens, etc.
I just can't see anything temporary fixing the problem. Just like ours it will require systemic changes. (At least thats my opinion)
The only things I have looked into with any seriousness are our ss and Medicare. Our ss is not going to be a problem. Minor tweaking at some point will keep things ok. Medicare is another story, unfortunately.
We are on the same page there.
Medicare is the Bear in the woods. But so is Medicaid. Put these two together and Oh My God!
The new Health Care bill is going to deny medical care to so many people that had it before and then our aging population and Medicare, it really is scarey.
>>The problem is not just debt, its obligations that must be paid out every month and year. Its the aggregate total that is the problem and their capitalist economies can no longer keep up. Spending more than they earn and can borrow in other words
The only reason for that DEBT is because the CAPITALISTS demanded that THEY take over the Governments to coin currency and do so at interest.
There is absolutely no need whatsoever to have to go out and BORROW money from the Capitalist class. The Governmnet can as easily create it out of NOTHING.
If you think that the means by which "Capitalists Create Wealth" is somehow superior, nobler , purer or a more accurate reflection of true wealth then I really do have a bridge to sell you.
.The creation of money is breath taking in its simplicity, boldness and endowment of privilege to a large class of others (financial institutions and banks) to also make money out of nothing, earn exorbitant interest on it, and show the better balance sheets and income statements than any productive company producing and selling real goods and services.
Although modern techniques are more convolved and sophisticated because of a huge money market internationally ( about $630 TRILLION in trades in money swaps in 2008 alone according to data from Rothschild's Bank of international Settlements (BIS) in Basle, Switzerland and which is rightly called the "bankers bank" ( all national central banks settle their cross currency exchanges through BIS)), the original idea, which is still the mathematical undergirding of all the market innovations, is that:
1. The large central banks, mostly in the G7 (original group), can print a certain amount of national currency, say 100, billion pounds sterling by the Bank of England who has already done so to the tune of $500 billion in 2008-2009.
2. The Central Bank then deposits this money in various private banks at a very low rate of interest from the private banks, now about 0- 25%.
3. If each major bank has received $10 billion in deposits from the FED, then these deposits, unlike peoples' demand deposits, are lendable. Furthermore, banks can relend MULTIPLES of these deposits and share capital. Typically the prudent fractional banking ratio has been 10:1, meaning for each dollar of deposit by the FED, the commercial banks can lend $10 to the economy and general population. This is called BANK CREDIT, and often is in the forms of letters of credit and short term operating loans to business called COMMERCIAL PAPER, and loans to individuals called lines of credit or a loan.
4. So a bank with $10 billion in deposits can lend up to $100 billion, but has to keep $10 billion in reserve. It still earns money on the $90 billion. Let us assume a lending rate to the general public is, on average, 4%. Then 4% on $90 billion would generate a gross interest income of $3.6 billion! That is absolutely incredible in that a bank with say 0 capital can make enormous amounts of money from thin air. To business, all this is unbelievable, and that is why they don't believe it.
5. Business people and the general public will assume that the banks made profits from their large portfolios of projects of hard assets just like they as ordinary business do.
6. This state of affairs has lasted now for 200 years in the Western world, and is considered normal - - hey banks lend money; that's their business. But little do average persons know that they borrow money at very bank that uses their own money (the Central Bank is the country's bank after all).
7. During the financial crisis, 2000 - - 2008, most large banks became reckless and lent in capital ratios of 30:1, to 50:1 because of lack of regulation and other pro-business dogma amounting to a religion.
8. To bail out the banks, the US treasury and the FED bought the banks worthless securities at 100 % instead of their fair market value which every other denizen of a capitalist system has to swallow as a bitter pill for mismanagement and incompetence.
9. The total of such bailout is such that Banks are now loaded with crisp new money to the tune of $1.5 trillion that Bernanke printed. Even at a conservative 12:1 ratio that is considered sound by Right Wing economists, the banks have nearly $10 trillion to lend to small and medium sized businesses, State Governments and individuals after paying off their debts.
10. But they are not lending. Hence the deepening recession and approaching depression. The question is why so? What is it in for them to impoverish whole nations and large classes of people deliberately? It makes no economic sense since if the people feel there is access to credit they would increase the risk-taking entrepreneurial approach and stimulate the economy at a million different points.
Given that banks are acting as a coalition NOT to lend for no justifiable causes, why do not Governments in the West print enough money to get the economy roaring again. They could start their own lending facility as GW notedin his post. For example, by printing only $200 billion ( 1/7 that printed up for the banksters), the US can provide at a ratio of 15:1 about $3 TRILLION into the economy as a stimulus. That can cure the economic malaise overnight and still have enough to put a dent in the climate problem and greening the economy, stop deforestation and get millions of people excited about the future with science and technology.
Again then why not? Short answer: The current crop of Western leaders are without conscience, backbone, have no principles, are grossly incompetent and ignorant about almost everything. The mob chose these leaders “democratically”. This is proof that there can be a right to vote ONLY for people who have a reasonably high level of general knowledge, critical thinking abilities, and arithmetic skill without which there is no way they can decide on budgets and who is a genuine statesman and who is a huckster. Criticising Western Leaders does not mean Eastern leaders are great. Most Eastern leaders are like medieval tyrants, with large parts of the population still living in the Stone Age in abject poverty. Plus Eastern Leaders have had no Enlightenment, and their religious beliefs are fatalistic and extremely superstitious and often have no value for human life.
Get money flowing in the world and all problems are solvable
Thanks for the analysis of how money works in the US banking system. I hope SABO CAT reads this one, as he alleged that the banks paid back what WE (citizen-taxpayers) just lent to them. Hardly!
I disagree with your 2nd-to-last paragraph, as it presumes the public has direct input regarding who gets vetted to run for major elections. In my little town there is one dominant election sign everywhere, and I get the feeling this guy is funded by the Christian Right (since it says something about Tea Party on it). When radio/TV lends its platforms only to those who can purchase access, this plays the role of pruning out those who might have sincere intentions and wise potential policies, but lack the backing of big money to get their chance under the lights and in front of the podium. If you want to attack the voters, it makes sense to understand the labyrinth of factors that limit who gets a shot at BEING elected in the first place.
Interesting. Thanks.
It seems though that more might be owed to the original cheap lender. Isn't there leverage owed- economic or political for the cheap original loan to the banks? And what about Rothschild? What demands can he make?
"If you think that the means by which "Capitalists Create Wealth" is somehow superior, nobler , purer or a more accurate reflection of true wealth then I really do have a bridge to sell you."
Money is just a means of trade, an assigned value in lieu of say an ear of corn. Frankly I don't see any "superior, nobler , purer or a more accurate reflection of true wealth" in accumulation, use or anything else. Money just is. I've got too many bridges already.
"The only reason for that DEBT is because the CAPITALISTS demanded that THEY take over the Governments to coin currency and do so at interest."
I would disagree that the European Union was formed at the behest of the Capitalists.
"There is absolutely no need whatsoever to have to go out and BORROW money from the Capitalist class. The Governmnet can as easily create it out of NOTHING."
Again, the European members cannot do that. Thats one of their primary problems.
With reference to the aggregate total, this country still has a monopoly on being the largest debtor nation on borrowing, spending, and taxing. About your last statement, why old thinking? Capitalism has existed but when has it been more disastrous than the last 30 years?
There is no doubt that we are the largest borrower! Of course we are the largest economy. We have become the largest spender over the last ten years, but we are not even close to the largest taxers.
"Capitalism has existed but when has it been more disastrous than the last 30 years?"
Late 1800's and the late 20's, early 30's in our country are the most recent. Far worse than now.
I say old thinking at this point, because the attack on capitalism and capitalist economies have been going on since the 20's and all the alternatives proposed have shown to be unacceptable and unworkable. The only thing left is criticism.
Its time to propose alternatives that work or be about our business, stop trying to rewrite history in some instances. Going forward I'll try to be clearer.
"Late 1800's and the late 20's, early 30's in our country are the most recent. Far worse than now."
A huge disaster that capitalism turned out to be I can agree on. As for this time, there are too many deceptive strategies being used to make it look like the disaster isn't as bad. Well, that is working out as most of the populace is in denial mode about it as a result. :(
P.S.: I supported truly regulated capitalism over unregulated capitalism but I have been informed that as I get older, I might get a better idea as to why even regulated capitalism is not to be trusted. This I shall research and do some long term thinking about as well as pick up from the comments here on possible answers. Maybe some experience somewhere later in my life might shed some light on this.
That is exactly what I think about the title as well- BACKWARDS. Disaster Capitalism was born in the usa.
Seems a good idea.
It all but impossible to get this message out theres. Myself and others have pointed out time and time again that this was NEVER a spending issue but a crisis of CAPITALISM.
Yet we still have people maintain the various countries Social programs and program spending led to this.
Capitalism is broken. It does not work. It is fundamentally flawed but by virtue of those same Capitalists owning the media we have masses of people believing this an issue with "Socialism".
Once again, where is your proven alternative? Everyone keeps claiming it doesn't work, but obviously it has by anyones fair measurement. And no one has (or can) name an alternative economic system that even works, let alone produce the goods so to speak.
Or is this simply a matter of semantics?
Theres no alternative economy because the capitalists have fought day in and out to prevent the emergence of any alternative economy. 99% of world production is still capitalist.
There is an alternative. All we have to do is get together and organize to overthrow capitalism and establish a equal and just society.
Whats a fair measure? The current Chinese economic model is Market socialism which is quite literally producing the goods, if thats what you call a fair measure, or perhaps even free trade???
The only reason economies work today is due to the SOCIAL Programs. Take those away and countries would collapse into anarchy and chaos.
As to producing goods..what is a GOOD?
Is a Triednt Nuclear submarine a GOOD and if so what is GOOD about it? What is GOOD about dropping Cluster muntions on a Village?
What is GOOD about toilet seats made of solid Gold as people starve and what is GOOD about a person having 7 Homes as others live in the streets?
What is good about "The Richest Country in the World" being unable to provide its Cizitens health care, decent housing and an education?
Your definition of GOOD and goods are very different then mine and there absolutely no reason GOODS like decent food, shelter and education can only br provided for when one side PROFITS of the other.
So please sir. Give me YOUR example of where Capitalism works for the greater GOOD and detail how only Capitalism can provide such. And please sir, before you answer this try and understand what CAPITALISM is.
It is NOT the marketplace. I will give you a hint. CAPITAlism.
As I suspected, its mostly semantics.
However, capitalisms provisions are most everywhere we are discussing, it most assuredly has provided the means to provide the very social programs you speak of.
And we are speaking of a capitalist economy. So again, whats your alternative? What economic system is superior and who uses it?
Social programs predate Capitalism. Virtually everything you attribute to Capitalism, came about BEFORE capitalism.
Capitalism is Individuals with CAPITAL controlling the means of production. CAPITALISM does not work unless only a small portion of the people have control over the bulk of CAPITAL. Capital is defined as money, land or resources.
The only true producer of wealth is labor. Capitalism puts LABOR under the control of CAPITAL. (The person or individual is "subject" to capital thus the end state as witnessed in Corporate America)
Labor does not require capital in order to be productive. We have simply claimed that such is the case and there no other way. The reason for this is so that the Capitalist class can continue to control the worker. Capital does not produce resources, nor did it make the land, all it does is assert OWNERSHIP over it.
Capitalism is a means of one small population of people controling a much larger group of people via the concept of OWNERSHIP. This ownership is limited to a small segment of the population. Capitalism by nature is a Class based system.
Frankly I don't disagree with you. But "Capitalism" in my view is not a capitalist economic system. They are not the same thing. I think its the scale of control that seperates the two and WHO has the control.
Would you object to the Mondragon capitalism as practiced? A good example brought up below. So scale and who is important as to what it is.
When you have unregulated capitalism as we do at the moment in America, you have the exact situation we have now. A bad form of cCapitalism rather than a capitalist economy.
But it has been the capitalist economies that have been producing and meeting the needs of all the social programs in America, Europe and much of Asia. Without them, you have no social programs. Thats the problem arising now.
>>Would you object to the Mondragon capitalism as practiced? A good example brought up below. So scale and who is important as to what it is.
Collective ownership is NOT capitalism. Collective ownership is just SOCIALISM taken to the logical conclusion.
Sometimes it helps to take the logic of extremes.
Under Capitalism the "Individual" with the most capital Rules supreme and through Virtue of that Capital all others subject to him. (Private ownership of the means of production implies such)
At the other end of the scale the COMMUNITY collectively owns all the Capital. Given all capital collectively owned the individual is in fact more "sovereign" as all rule equally.
Now it obvious we can not have these extremes in practice but it seems to me it makes far more sense that we put community above the individual and the needs of the Individual above the needs of "Capital".
"we put community above the individual and the needs of the Individual above the needs of "Capital"."
I believe that to be true no matter the system or the country my friend. Well said!
"Collective ownership is NOT capitalism. Collective ownership is just SOCIALISM taken to the logical conclusion."
My bad. True, but it functions within a capitalist economic system, it does not and I'd say cannot stand by itself.
Why not?
To GwNorth: Your Comment is very GOOD, sir.
Capitalism is unable to fulfill the needs of the people. Thats what some say, but its still the only economic system that HAS produced the most for the most.
Those that claim it can still produce no example of another economic system that even comes up to its ankle. Not one country that uses another economic system that is in the same solar system.
It's not the economic system that has produced the most for the most. Last I remember, the last 200 yrs of unbridled industrial capitalism has produced the following: Two World Wars, mass inequality of income, global starvation, nuclear armaments, climate change, environmental dedredation, complete inconsistence and incompetence in preventing mass disease, man made disasters (Chernoybl, Oil spills including the BP Gulf oil spill, etc)
The fact is that a economic system which eliminates class distinctions and establishes a world of freedom, justice and equality has a TON more to offer the human race than Capitalism.
There's no example of a different system because the capitalists have fought assidiously to prevent the emergence of any new system.
And don't go using your USSR,China ,North Korea, and Cuba as examples of non-capitalist societies. They are still state capitalist economies.
All I can say to you is that by any measurement you care to use, the Capitalist economies have produced and all others have not.
I would niot for one minute call Cuba or North Korea a state capitalist economy. Not by any stretch of the imigination.
So I say again, which economic system and countryb that uses it was or is superior?
"Two World Wars, mass inequality of income, global starvation, nuclear armaments, climate change, environmental dedredation, complete inconsistence and incompetence in preventing mass disease, man made disasters (Chernoybl, Oil spills including the BP Gulf oil spill, etc)"
You covered a lot of ground, suffice it to say, not true. In many instances capitalistic economies had nothing to do with some of these things. That for another day, you opened the large economy size can of worms!
RE: suffice it to say, not true
All these thing ARE a consequence of capitalism:
"Two World Wars, mass inequality of income, global starvation, nuclear armaments, climate change, environmental degradation, complete inconsistency and incompetence in preventing mass disease, man made disasters (Chernoybl, Oil spills including the BP Gulf oil spill, etc)"*
I would argue that your historical ignorance is also a product of capitalism.
* I agree it's a "lot of ground". See Chris Harman's "People's History of the World".
If its one thing I'm not, its historically ignorant.
I would argue your opinion in these instances is ideological not historical.
"See Chris Harman's "People's History of the World".
I have, An interesting work, but a view that is framed from a political virew in many instances rather than real history. He was a socialist at heart. Still a greart loss because like most tomes like this it contained real truths.
"nuclear armaments" example were a direct result of agression by dictatorships and developed as a means of defense.
How you see them as a direct result of the capitalist economic system I'd be most interested to see.
How in Heaven's Name could you consider the use of nuclear armaments on the overwhelmingly unarmed civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki defensive? Who were those persons attacking? No they were suffering at the hands of the capitalist class of military industrialists that directed all their countries policies. And it was NOT necessary for the surrender of Japan, only for the UNCONDITIONAL surrender terms of those same militarists and industrialists that were vying for the resources our militarists and capitalists were vying for, including labor populations. Our capitalist enforcers didn't want to concede on any of the treaty contract terms with Japans' government thugs and felt perfectly entitled to incinerate innocents to make that perfectly clear to rest of the planet.
Point, game, set, match.
Not to mention, the hording of tons of nuclear fuel, in the form of bombs, that could used properly heat, light and make so many peoples lives so much better.
>^^<
I sure would have given you and all the rest that claimed the Japanese weere ready to surrender a seat in the landing craft and let your family mourn your death.
The claims that Japan was ready or about to surrender are made by fools and poltroons that never saw anything but students in front of them. Thats revisionist history at its worst.
See Part 7, chapters 1 and 2 (pages 379-429). This explains how WWI was an inevitable consequence of rival capitalist empires all needing to expand in order to maintain the growth of profits. German capitalism needed to expand, (axiomatic to capitalism) but the other western capitalist powers had already expanded by carving up much of the world via colonialism. So, Germany's only option was to attack its capitalist neighbors.
I agree. Chris Harman's "A People's History of the World" is a great read. And from reading that book it should be obvious that capitalist nations have to arm themselves in order to make way for their corporations to expand all around the world. For this they need weapons to ensure survival of their economy and rival other world superpowers. So the worst weapons imaginable all stem for a necessity under capitalism to protect property and to stay profitable. This includes the military industrial complex as well, where war is seen as a business these days instead of a world crisis that needs to be addressed.
Oh really? So the ancient slave systems in Egypt, Greece, and Rome didn't produce mass worldly spectacles of pyramids, domes, wealth and civilization? These were non-capitalist empires mind you.
Any nation where government bureaucrats own the means of production in its totality is considered state capitalist in my opinion. I wouldn't know what else to call it.
Capitalist economies had nothing to do with the aforementioned crises? LOL really? So the world wars weren't instigated by capitalist nations? Last I remember it was the Allies vs the Axis of evil, which we're all capitalist nations. THE OIL SPILL WAS DUE TO BP'S NEGLIGENCE! CHERNOBYL - USSR OWNED INDUSTRY! A current world in which half of humanity (3 billion people) subsist on less than $3 a day (UN statistics) is very much due to the capitalist world system.
It's very simple. The capitalist economy is the underlying cause to all the worlds problems. Why is it so hard for you to accept this fact?
"So the ancient slave systems in Egypt, Greece, and Rome didn't produce mass worldly spectacles of pyramids, domes, wealth and civilization? These were non-capitalist empires mind you"
Talk about a narrow sharing of the wealth! Those guys make our greedy clowns look like Father Christmeas!
Cuba and North Korea asre dictatorships, pure and simple. Though if we got our heads out of our rectums and stopped the silly embasrgo, Cuba would become a clone of the China model pretty quickly.
"Capitalist economies had nothing to do with the aforementioned crises?"
You know I can't find where I said that. Mainly because I didn't.
"It's very simple. The capitalist economy is the underlying cause to all the worlds problems. Why is it so hard for you to accept this fact?"
For the very simple fact that it isn't true. By fact and record its the other way around.
I personally believe you'll find the cause to be peoples greed and lust for power and I also believe you'll find it better checked in countries with capitalist economic systems. Demonstrably so.
Right. Similar to the checks in the US capitalist economy where the owners of finance have run amok producing one of the worst recessions since the great depression in the midst of a lack of regulations.
Therefore, Disaster Capitalism? Bring it on! More resource wars? Bring it on! Increasing emissions causing global warming? Bring it on! More food riots and food insecurity? Bring it on! Concentrate more wealth among the few while making the vast majority more poor? Bring it on! Hell, shall we just nuke the planet now and get the apocalypse over with? Bring it on!!! All these things flow naturally from the most unsustainable economic system yet devised and you want to perpetuate capitalism?
Human beings are amazingly creative, why is it that you think that we can't create a better economic system? Your argument defending capitalism is circular: since we have no examples (on a global scale, true, but there exists many excellent smaller scale examples) none can exist? Using your logic, scientific discoveries, the Enlightenment, would not have been possible.