Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Austerity: Why and for Whom?
Clearly, the global capitalist crisis that started in 2007 will be neither short nor shallow. The government rescue of the US financial industry pumped enough extra money into the economy and sufficiently reduced interest rates to give banks and the stock market the heavily hyped "recovery" that started March 2009 and is now over. What is worse, their recovery never reached much of the rest of the economy. Efforts to broaden the recovery or extend it beyond one limp year have failed. That failure cost Washington trillions in borrowed funds from lenders who now demand guarantees that those loans will be repaid to them with interest. Similar demands now confront many other governments who likewise borrowed heavily to cope with the crisis in their countries.
The guarantee demanded by lenders is "austerity." Lenders want governments to raise taxes or cut government spending or both. Governments will then have more money available to pay interest on loans and to repay those loans. Governments that fail to impose austerity will face higher interest on new and renewed loans or will be denied loans which would cripple those governments' usual operations. Austerity is yet another extreme burden imposed on the global economy by the capitalist crisis (in addition to the millions suffering unemployment, reduced global trade, etc.).
Who are these lenders demanding austerity? The globally active financial enterprises -- mostly banks that collapsed in the crisis and were rescued by their home governments -- are, together, also major lenders to those governments. Banks own their own governments' debts but also other governments' debts. For example, major banks in France and Germany are among the Greek government's chief creditors. US banks and related financial enterprises hold significant amounts of other governments' debts and other nations' banks own much US government debt.
Global capitalism's 2007 crisis froze the credit system that sustains capitalist production. Private borrowers -- enterprises and individuals - could no longer repay loans because their investments had generated too little and their incomes had failed to grow enough. Banks had failed to properly assess risks in deciding how much to lend to whom. They therefore stopped lending to private borrowers because that had become too risky. As private borrowers defaulted and new lending atrophied, banks' capital and their profits collapsed. The whole capitalist system ground toward a halt because credit became unavailable. The only solution most leaders in capitalist countries could conceive was to unfreeze credit by having the government guarantee bank solvency, guarantee many private debts, invest massively in and lend to private banks, and become the ultimate borrower of a huge portion of loanable funds. Banks everywhere lent to governments because it had become unsafe to lend to almost anyone else. Governments everywhere used the borrowed money to rescue banks and other financial enterprises.
This peculiar "nationalization" of debt served capitalism by having the government temporarily function as the lender and borrower of last resort. Nationalization unfroze the credit system sufficiently to stop the crisis from collapsing global capitalism. Few policy-makers (and few others) in 2008 and early 2009 worried much about the consequences of so massively increasing government debts. The looming possible capitalist system collapse overwhelmed worry about any "longer run."
The international banks that were rescued (from their own bad loans and investments) by governments now worry that governments they lent to won't be able to repay those loans. Banks threaten to make further loans much more costly or even impossible unless those governments impose "austerity." Most political leaders recognize that the banks' threats, if carried out under their watch, would end their careers quickly and badly. All capitalists see in possible government defaults the specter of another credit freeze with terrifying ramifications for global capitalism. Still worse for those banks: governments in default would not likely be able to borrow again to rescue banks again.
Nearly all current political leaders of major capitalist countries responded positively to the banks' demand for austerity (as in Canada's recent G-20 meeting). This immediately raised a basic political conflict always simmering inside capitalism: who will pay increased taxes and who will suffer decreased government spending? Militants in Europe have already marched and struck against austerity as an unacceptable plan to make workers pay to fix capitalists' crises; more general strikes are set in many European nations with a Europe-wide general strike now scheduled for September 29. Meanwhile, capitalists work with politicians to define as "reasonable in crisis times" austerity programs mixing both tax increases (chiefly on workers) and spending cuts (chiefly on workers).
An Athens trucker says, "Public employees here don't work hard enough, so it is reasonable to cut their pay." A Parisian clerk thinks it "reasonable to postpone the official retirement age a few years; we all live longer now." A Minneapolis office worker agrees that it is "reasonable, in crisis times, to get by with fewer public services." A New York laboratory technician supports a new tax on cell-phones as "probably reasonable; after all, people overuse them." Remarkably, such notions of "reasonable" are silent about other possible and, to say the least, more "reasonable" forms of austerity.
Let's consider some alternative "reasonable" kinds of austerity (i.e., austerity for others) and then question austerity itself. Serious efforts to collect income taxes from US-based multinational corporations, especially those who use internal pricing mechanisms to escape US taxation, would generate vast new federal revenues. The same applies to wealthy individuals. The US has no federal property tax on holdings of stocks, bonds, and cash accounts (states and localities levy no such property taxes either). If the federal government levied a 1 per cent tax on assets between $100,000 to 499,000, and 1.5 per cent on assets above $500,000, that would raise much new federal revenue (everyone's first $100,000 could be exempted just as the existing US income tax exempts the first few thousands of dollars of individual incomes). Exiting the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters would do likewise. Ending tax exemptions for super-rich private educational institutions (Harvard, Yale, etc.) and for religious institutions (church-goers would then need to pay the costs of their churches) would be among the many other such alternative "reasonable" austerity measures. Comparable alternatives apply -- and are being struggled over -- in other countries.
A capitalist system that generates so massive a crisis, spreads it globally, and then proposes mass austerity to "overcome" it has lost the right to continue unchallenged. Should we not be publicly debating whether America (and the world) might be better served by going beyond capitalism? Can we not learn from capitalism's repeated cycles (failures) and change to a new, non-capitalist system? Having learned hard lessons from the first socialist attempts during the last century in Russia, China, and beyond, can we not rise to the challenge to make a new attempt that avoids their failures and builds on their strengths? When better than now?
- Posted in
74 Comments so far
Show AllGet yourself in shape, there is a fight brewing. Paying the immense costs to prop up corrupt Capitalism is unacceptable. If the rich will not pay for it why should we? There are few of them and many of us.....end of story.
You can bet the rich will NOT be the ones to pay for propping up our corrupt capitalism. Congress, the majority of whom are rich, will see to that.
You can get this information online as follows: Of the 535 members of the Senate and House, 237 are millionaires - that's 44%.
Of the Justices on the Supreme Court, 5 out of the 9 are millionaires - that's 55%. What does that tell us: the system is rigged against the middle class and the poor!!! The majority of our "leaders" are milllionaires!!! Does this sound like a balanced group of people who are supposed to represent ALL of Americans? Have they shown any interest whatsoever in raising the living standards of the middle or lower class???? To the contrary, they're talking about cutting benefits (unemployment and Medicare).
The Justices insured the lives of the corporations by making them "persons," thus enabling them to keep paying "bribes" (which is what lobbying really is) to congress members to continue favoring their cronies in big business.
We are now living in a totally corrupt Plutocracy (rule by the rich) and there's literally nothing the midle class or lower class can do to change that. The middle class will be continually fooled, as in the most recent Presidential election, into believing that they have a "leader" in a certain candidate, like Obama (who is also a millionaire) who, once he/she gets into office, will continue with "more of the same" corruption!
The middle and lower class are, and will remain, the victims of the corrupt predation of a totally broken predatory pseudo-democracy!!! You can bet that any "austerity" that is imposed by our "leaders" will be aimed strictly on the middle and lower classes!!!
"We are now living in a totally corrupt Plutocracy (rule by the rich) and there's literally nothing the middle class or lower class can do to change that."
... Oh, how I wish you were wrong, but sad to say, I think you are right.
"Austerity" is a euphemism for the accelerated and continued transfer of wealth from 98% of Americans to 2% of Americans.
Vote for socialist or other left of Dem candidates in the 2010 elections.
I certainly plan to!!!!!!
Nope, certainly not right about "nothing [we] can do to change that". It will definitely take organisation, and it might take second-amendment tools (Goddess forbid!) but we can certainly do something about it if we but choose to do so.
Last nite in Minnesota a service industry employee dumped 2000 pennies into the lap of the Republican candidate for governor for his stance on the proposed exemption of the minmmum wage laws regarding their labor. No great shakes but it is a start. We must confront, physically if need be like the Tea Party, all politicians who will not end this relentless sandbagging and bullying of the unemployed and poor. We must put some fear into them besides the voting booth. There is a large march planned in October and it should be coordinated with civil protests in every state, as well. Millions more face a winter of destitution and slow death. There are 7-8 people(actual#) looking for work for every opening. That number will grow with another cycle of college grads hitting the streets. There is no acceptable level of starvation in the richest country in the world. Those who sit by and do nothing will be complacent in this economic genocide. End this disgraceful treatment of the less fortunate or their will be serious trouble for this country.
Stone- I not looking for any more acedemic or institutional studies showing what needs or could be done to bring fairness into the capitalist system via taxation or other regulatory mechanisms. This is studied to death and now it is time to implement the action plan. That plan is simple and direct. Mandatory prison sentences and asset forfeiture for white collar crimes involving gov't funds, grants, etc. Corporate boards and CEOs are criminally prosecuted for murder for the death of employees thru negligence(Massey). 5yr minimum prison terms for Congress members, convicted of conflict of interest charges, plus pension forfeiture. Citizen panels voted on by the populace with independent oversight and subpoena powers over Wall Street, the Financial Industry and Defense Contractors. A Living Wage Index tied to the rate of inflation with a true market basket of goods and services measuring stick. An across the board cut in DOD expenditures of 33% phased in over 5 budget cycles(10yrs). The complete end to the lobbying industry as it currently exists and a citizens panel to rewrite the rules of the road going forward as regards petitioning our gov't. An end to lifetime appts. to SCOTUS. Term limits for members of Congress: 10yrs for House members and 18 for the Senate. Think of some more?
mr. wolfe's first priority will be to bring fiscal order to washington by introducing legislation requiring that corporations, wealthy individuals, and stock exchanges pay their fair share of taxes. wolfe noted that corporate taxes make up only 9% of federal tax receipts, while they carried 23% of the federal load in 1954, when eisenhower was president. wolfe further notes that wealthy americans are the least taxed in the western world, and that a 1/2 tax on both the buyer and the seller of speculative derivatives could raise 640 billion dollars in a 64 trillion dollar securities market. "we've bailed out wall street, so now its time for wall street to return the favor".
wolfe said, "if we must pay fifty cents in taxes to buy a gallon of milk, wall street can pay a 1/2 per cent tax". wolfe also wants to protect social security and medicare and use a payroll tax deduction to fund a single payer plan in which all citizens would be able to choose their own doctor. wolfe said, in no other country do 47,000 people die annually because they don't have a card with the good hands logo on it, or one picturing antlers or good hands. it's time to quit crucifying the less fortunate of our brothers and sisters on a cross of blue". wolfe believes that obamacare is just a voucher system that does not contain costs, but continues to allow the insurance companies to collude in price fixing and market splitting. "obama continues to allow the insurance companies to function outside of the antitrust laws that we passed in 1894", wolfe noted.
does this sound like part of a plan? the top 1% have incomes exceeding 500 thousand dollars per year and own about 50% of the nation's financial assets. they have benefited greatly from government bailouts and the internationalization of the global finance. now, 40% of all profits made in this country are flowing to banks and stock companies. these companies do not hire a lot of workers, as their computer systems churn out buy and sell programs to take advantage of market changes. "they produce nothing real, have huge exposure to financial downturns, and have caused the taxpayers to commit nearly a trillion dollars to insure their survival", wolfe said.
It sounds like a great plan. But who is left to implement it when the media message is that consumer taxes on little people, and reductions in social services on little people, are the way to go? Who is left to implement it when the people's representatives are all in the pay of the capitalists?
These prescriptions appear reasonable, but as with everything else, the problem is our politics. Reform the politics, or nothing gets reformed. I propose we develop a mass movement of ordinary citizens focused on just one idea: demanding implementation of Dylan Ratigans four steps to reform our political system (i.e. campaign finance reform).
A lot of posters on CD disagree. That is, they agree that political reform is necessary before Wolfe's ideas can be acted on, they just don't think a mass movement to demand this reform is going to work. They are cagey about what they expect to happen in its absence, but I think they are thinking about outright revolt. My problem with that is the American public. Too many of them have been trained to be uncritical of capitalism. But the worst of it is, they are even more uncritical of democracy. Proposing to trash both is a non-starter. That's why I suggest a mass-movement to correct the democracy. After that, hopefully, democracy has the tools on its own to correct the capitalism.
That a Marxist wrote this article is quite clear. While there are many points I actually agree with, especially the main point that the pain must be shared, there are a few that are ideological rather than fact based.
1. The general population is insisting that the spending stop and not because the "lenders" want it, but because its prudent policy.
2. Saying that capitalism's cycles are "failures" is disingenuous to say the least and suggesting a socialist economic system is the answer in the light of current circumstances is theater of the absurd.
3. "Militants in Europe have already marched and struck against austerity as an unacceptable plan to make workers pay to fix capitalists' crises"
He neglects to point out that much of the crisis is not capitalism, but the cost social promises and policies that the capitalist economy can no longer keep up with.
The spending can hardly stop - indeed it should increase in order to support expansion of vital public services like education and hralthcare and government-driven programs and infrastructure needed to move to an environmentally sustainable society.
This could be done with the totally painless taxes on wealth stated in the article.
Was the repulican Eisenhower an "Marxist" in supporting a 91% top marginal tax rate on high incomes?
I would argue that we spend too much on education and healthcare right now. We spend more than most countries. I would argue that too much money is wasted, diverted and misspent in both these areas.
I would certainly argue that we spend far too much on government and have far too many government employees that duplicate efforts, overlap authority and cost far too much for the little they produce. Look at the military budget too. Should we stay in Afghanistan and cut food stamps? Should we maintain around 30,000 troops in Korea and refuse healthcare to some of our seniors? I would argue that we could spend far less and gain far more.
I don't believe for one moment that raising the taxes on the highest 1% of earners or even the top 5% will solve our problem. We are going to have to raise taxes across the board.
But I have no objection at all to raising personal income taxes to a fair and certainly much higher rate. Its absurd to have a secretary paying a higher percentage of her income than her billionaire boss does. Nor can I see why SS taxes limited to a certain amount? Obviously the better off have the responsibility to share with the less well off. So what if you pay in more than you get back? You are benefiting from our country and its citizens, if you don't want to do your fair share, begonia to another country and see how you like it.
Nor can government continue to pass laws and spend on things that do NOT help like the latest fiasco in Health Care or the stimulus bill that was an utter failure as we all know where the money really went by now.
If we had Eisenhower and his Congress I would trust them to do what is right for our country and the benefit of our citizens...for example, our highway system. Unfortunately we had Bush and the boys for weight years, now we get Obama and Pelosi.
I ask you, do you want to trust programs and developing an environmentally sustainable economy and society to them after seeing what they did with Health Care? I sure don't!
I asked you this once before, but I think it's relevant given your posts: Did you sustain a major head injury while in combat?
Your posts read like an apologist for "The Shock Doctrine." It's obscene that you'd advocate for raising taxes across the board when the well-to-do have essentially been given a pass for 30 years! And you say that too much is spent on education and health care without explaining WHY that is... things like, say, the 30% cut that goes to insurance companies and their CEOS? Things like forcing a standard ed model on children that costs plenty when it comes to administering a battery of endlessly robotic tests.
Your idea of fairness is some blanket policy that presumes a level playing field exists in the first place.
If you read Wilber's informed, intelligent posts, you might have begun to adjust your thinking. Instead, you remain stuck on your erroneous assumptions like a TV set that can play only one channel. That brings me back to the head injury question. Or maybe someone bludgeoned you while you were sleeping and upon waking, you never noticed the cognitive loss involved?
Siouxrose, I am not as up on the comment boards as I was last summer but the posts by mightymite remind me a lot of ActionJackson, not in the yelling caps and name calling but the generally sidetracking presentation of his apologies for unregulated corporatism. Since I am familiar with you generally being a compassionate person, I would encourage mightymite to reflect on any unexplained blood pools, dents in his head or blackouts of time for which he can not account. If he truly believes his posts perhaps he would be more at home someplace else... strike that. It is instructive to see how we counter the arguments of those we encounter in daily life, who haven't thought things through or who oppose the working class. Thanks for your patience, SR.
> Since I am familiar with you generally being a compassionate person
You missed her when she lost her "compassion" under this article.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/13-3
MARTIAN a/k/a Kyle and/or Shawn Berry is an agent provocateur in this forum. Since I am one of a few who have been attacked on a regular basis, you're damned right I lose my patience. Nor do I need extend compassion to the imbeciles that spend a lot of time derailing the points raised by others who are FAR MORE intelligent and well-read than they are.
Jesus knocked over the tables of the moneychangers. Human beings only tolerate so much in the way of dangerous abuse.
You have NO ethics. You misuse others' words, and when you can't provoke them to lose their tempers, you flip into another screen name to run the same scam.
I have defended OTHER people that you and your little crowd of Nazi impersonators seek to defame using your ignorance, or its ruse, to try to tie some of the best forum posters to things they never said and/or intended.
I don't suffer fools politely. I have posted over 4000 responses on CD. If you find 5-10 where I lost my cool, that's a very small percentage given the times I've had to come up, repeatedly against absolute assholes like you. Compassion does not mean one need be kind to those in this forum who do damage. THAT is not my species of compassion. I look forward to the day when you and your comrades get the karma they so richly deserve. Meanwhile, I am not interested in further debate. TIME is precious and you don't deserve any more of mine. As I've noted about you and your tag team, cowardice AMPLY on display, you'll post false allegations when I am off line actually conducting a life; and seem most likely to do this in the wee hours of the morning so that the stain of your false witness can hold until someone flags it... and has it removed. How often have I had to deal with this crap from you and your buddies? You're a sick bunch... and you WILL have to answer to a higher authority. Your military paycheck will be about as effective as "I was only following orders," when the charge of "granting false witness" is held before you. I realize you will try to turn this on me (as you have on multiple occasions) to suggest that I am using false witness on you. Hardly. Too bad the source won't show its hand. I publish my name and books based on my research. You hide behind screen names and throw poison darts... who holds the higher ground? I teach what I have spent my life learning to raise consciousness. It is OFTEN a thankless task, and certainly (as per this forum) not about collecting a paycheck. THAT is hardly the case for the vandals in our midst. I count you chief among those.
> MARTIAN a/k/a Kyle and/or Shawn Berry
> is an agent provocateur in this forum.
Personal assumptions as usual. No sources to prove it. You know I'm neither of them. Why would Shawn Berry come back as a new person after you and him had a truce? Let's review at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/09-1 . There is no way that I can think of that Shawn would think of coming back as another alias, assuming that CD allowed it, and debating you. Don't you remember? He hates astrology and religion. I have no clue about Kyle. Who is Kyle?
> Since I am one of a few who have been
> attacked on a regular basis
Typical victim game to ask for more power. Nowhere have you been attacked unless you can show the audience proof but you do a great job of attacking others who don't see your eye to eye.
> You have NO ethics.
Neither do you. You say you're below the poverty line and self-employed. Shouldn't you be getting a new job instead of posting here 24/7 ?
> You misuse others' words, and when you can't provoke them to lose their tempers, > you flip into another screen name to run the same scam.
Now why would I do that other than your personal hatred? Even Justice Arcs had a cool mind. You could learn from him.
> I have posted over 4000 responses on CD. If you find 5-10 where I lost my cool,
> that's a very small percentage given the times I've had to come up, repeatedly
> against absolute assholes like you.
You sound like somebody who wants to be a famous celebrity. Nobody cares that you post over 4000 comments. You lose your cool all the time. You might want to be careful calling someone you have no idea about an asshole when you're acting like one yourself.
> Compassion does not mean one need be kind to those
> in this forum who do damage.
You might want to be careful about that. You've been damaging yourself pretty hard by trying to hurt others who don't think like you. Nobody has been doing any damage to the forum. There is debating the ideas but nobody's done any personal damage. You must be imagining things.
> I look forward to the day when you and
> your comrades get the karma they so richly deserve.
Who are you referring to as comrades? Another imagination of yours again? Karma is already here. I don't get personal about it unlike you.
> Meanwhile, I am not interested in further debate.
You never debated me. You just hurled personal attacks to get another 15 minutes of fame.
> TIME is precious and you don't deserve any more of mine.
Then why do you keep posting hate messages? You always say that and then you go back to being spiteful. Didn't your parents teach you not to hurt people you don't know?
> As I've noted about you and your tag team
What tag team ? How can you be sure there was a tag team in the first place?
> you'll post false allegations when I am off line
> actually conducting a life; and seem most likely
> to do this in the wee hours of the morning so that
> the stain of your false witness can hold until
> someone flags it... and has it removed.
> How often have I had to deal with this crap from you
> and your buddies? You're a sick bunch... and you
> WILL have to answer to a higher authority.
Sioux, do I have to go back to the archives and pull up posts of you doing exactly what YOU falsely accuse others of doing? You just ask that I pull it up and I will without fear. Your paranoia and hatred against others who don't conform to your bias is on public display. You can continue lying about others who you have no idea about but facts are facts. I don't know who is anymore sicker, you or the accused? If you want solitude, then don't come here.
> Your military paycheck will be about as
> effective as "I was only following orders,"
> when the charge of "granting false witness"
> is held before you.
Sure sioux. Whatever your imagination tells you. In your wet dream, I'm working for the military while in reality you constantly bash the military but rely on it. Be honest Sioux. We all rely on the military to defend us and you can't blame the military for the politicians choosing what wars to use the military for.
> I realize you will try to turn this on me
> (as you have on multiple occasions) to suggest
> that I am using false witness on you.
Whoever said anything about false witness? You make up accusations but never prove them. The burden of proof is on YOU. When you or any of your friends can prove your allegations, then you may rest in peace but you can't and you won't.
> Too bad the source won't show its hand.
Translation, Sioux Rose has nothing to prove her false accusations so she invents another myth about a non-existent source. I told this to Justice Arcs and I'll tell this to you. Either you show concrete evidence or back off your false accusation. You have no business tying me to people I have no idea of or lying about "mutiple accounts" just because YOU personally suspect it so.
> I publish my name and books based on my research.
What does that have to do with the discussion here? Nothing. Trying to boost your conflated ego again? Got it.
> You hide behind screen names and throw poison darts
Ad hominem attack.
> I teach what I have spent my life learning to raise consciousness.
I'm sure you do in your dreams. For a teacher who loves to get nitpicky, fail as many kids on grammer and spelling, teach hatred and intolerance, and blame Mars for everything you'd make a great private school teacher for a religious school. You should apply for one so you can make some more money and keep flying around the world.
You poor jealous fool.
shrug
For the record, I'm not you or Kyle and the records show it. Thanks for bringing up the truce event from last month. I haven't talked to her since then and she still thinks I'm some "agent provacateur" or whatever shit? She should know that I'm not a part of any tag team or one many screen names she used to accuse me of. I have a life and I work. She can scream all day about global warming while I am actually doing something about it even if that means not having time to come here. I'm on a new contract to renovate some business buildings and in that my assignment and that of the other builders is to replace with greener technologies so that the ozone can have some relief. I now do repair work only on the weekends as a part timer. If she can't get that through her thick skull, she can go to hell for all I care. I'm sticking to people like readytotransform, Justice Arcs, doubledee, aquifier, Visiting Professor, and other rational people on this site who are interested in forgiving and healing instead of jerkwads always obsessing about war memories. I'm not falling for her war baiting.
Justice Arcs is ok and although he admits his bias, he's usually diplomatic about it. The reason I brought up the truce event was her uttering of your name reminded me of the war between you and her up until it ended. It is mentally disturbing of Sioux to selectively dwell on past wars even after it ended. I have nothing against her discussing astrology while I take it that you don't like it. I have a different take on Mars rules from what she frames Mars to be. He may be the god of war but he is supposed to also be the god who defends and gives people the energy and desire to be active and that's what Venus loves about him. Why Sioux Rose takes that interpretation personally is beyond me. I have seen her out of control emotional posts attacking some of the nicer posters like Puck Twain, doubledee, and Stanley1979 in the recent weeks. She can blame Mars for her own personal problems but if that is how she plans to teach, I feel sorry for the students who will be taught to copy the modern feminists in keeping the blaming flames alive but doing nothing to help. She can finding a scapegoat for getting in her crosshairs but she needs to learn to be personally responsible. By her posts, her view of compassionate matches Dick Cheney's !
Justice Arcs was an interesting guy and forgiving. At least he reminded me of the fact that I never really hated Sioux Rose all along but thought of her astrology as black magic bs. It was her taking it too personally that started the flame wars for months. I was also an enemy for admitting to being a practical Democrat and calling out on the 24/7/364/4 attacks on Obama on this forum. There is a lot of negativity on this forum but not everyone is like that. Visiting Professor himself told me that he doesn't believe in Rosie's astrological explanations. He mentioned his differences from hers to explain why he is not Sioux Rose which I originally mistook him to be but later apologized.
==================================================================================
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/07-4
Excerpt from Visiting Professor June 7th, 2010 11:17 pm
1) She will sometimes use confrontational and disrespectful language when addressing her critics, while I try to avoid such interactions.
2) She often suggests that she has personal knowledge of certain critics who respond to her comments, while I do not express such thoughts.
3) She professes a belief in astrology and frequently includes astrological explanations in her posts, while I never do so. In my opinion, astrology does not have a factual basis or any practical use, and I think all such mythology-based belief systems are a distraction and a hindrance to a better understanding of our society and our condition--and a hindrance to any useful examination of appropriate remedies.
===================================================================================
Sioux Rose always has a fix on anyone's weaknesses and never believes that they can change. I don't know what shit in her brain causes her to behave like this but I wouldn't bother. I think that most people here are afraid to question her foul behavior. Whatever I guess. I may not make it to Rosie's good books but I'm out of her war baiting and will continue to speak to most others who aren't so disrespectful as she is even if I don't agree with everything they say. I hope Justice Arcs can do something to correct her behavior since he's her best friend from what I assumed last month on that Helen Thomas article.
Since you clowns HIDE behind different screen names, the TRUCE is meaningless. If the same crap is thrown at me from a different screen name that represents the same PERSON or organization he works for... that is grounds for a cessation of the original agreement. Of course you amoral clones operate like Dick Cheney, and think morality, decency, honesty, integrity, and transparency only need apply for others... after all, that makes them so much easier to attack. You hide behind screen names to throw darts, and show by the lack of indepth analysis (as so clearly revealed in your posts) that you've never read anything in your lives. Then, with the primitive ego on full display you demonstrate that you believe that by reducing another you somehow improve your own status. Top dog militarism in practice.
Unfortunately, to defend myself at times I must reduce myself to utilizing YOUR tactics. The agreement is for all of YOU... the Kyle/Shawn/Martian triumvirate to leave my GOOD name alone. Then I imagine you'll just generate the next screen name to toss the same false accusations. You are not at a level that can understand me or my work. It takes YEARS to come to such an understanding; and it cannot be conveyed in words to those who do not have the eyes, ears, or wit to perceive what Is. I have seen you try to attack others who have clout in this forum... you're here to try to weaken/diminish the voices that have something to say. Your souls are dirty. You will one day have to answer to a higher authority for selling out.
Rosie sez: "If the same crap is thrown at me from a different screen name that represents the same PERSON or organization he works for... that is grounds for a cessation of the original agreement."
But that hasn't happened so you broke your own words.
Rozie sez: "The agreement is for all of YOU... the Kyle/Shawn/Martian triumvirate to leave my GOOD name alone."
There was no such agreement. You're trying to change the rules of your war baiting game but nobody is buying it.
Rosie sez: "You hide behind screen names to"
The CD admins have proof that none of us are the same. Go ask them.
Rosie sez: "Your souls are dirty. You will one day have to answer to a higher authority for selling out."
First you say we're the same person and now you say "souls". Go check your own soul and clean it up first. You're already having to answer to higher authority for lying and causing wars just like Dick Cheney, Ms. War Baiter. Even Olemanriver had to be a diplomat when you hurt Tirebiter's feelings.
Rosie sez: "Of course you amoral clones operate like Dick Cheney, and think morality, decency, honesty, integrity, and transparency only need apply for others... after all, that makes them so much easier to attack."
The only person acting like Dick Cheney is Sioux Rose. When a war is settled, Rosie pulls a Cheney to reinvent the war. I don't believe that you ever learned the meaning of peace. If you were a warrior in your previous life, then I'm not surprised to see you engaged in war baiting. Your life must be sad and boring trying to make peace while only making wars makes you popular on this forum. You're a sick puppy. Please get some mental help.
As usual, your accusations are false, way off, and unproven. When you can't win, you resort to getting touchy and personal. You think too negatively to understand your own lies, contradictions, and hypocrisies. You deserve an F on comprehension. Bye now.
NET: There are a group of persons who post here and each one uses multiple screen names. One can tune the ear to recognize them, as they tend to harp on the same themes. In general these are always pro-capitalism, usually apologetic for the military, generally asking for more time for Obama to make things right, in favor of nuclear energy and/or genetically modified crops, and in most instances, HOSTILE to any issue (like rape) that targets women.
Actually, Mighty is Thomas More, also known as: Veritas, Caligula, Henry 8, and who knows how many OTHER screen names. The same is true for those who always show up and play tag team. They tell the forum that they are civil engineers, or work for I.T. companies, or are otherwise blue collar repair men. Sometimes they post ROUND the clock on week days. And to make sure that this is not overtly noticed (and to always attack me when I point it out), they each use multiple screen names. I don't know if they work for Homeland Security or its equivalent, but we DO know that sites such as this one are being monitored. A few of their members are fairly up on the issues and play good cop. The dummies only lend cover to their "comrades" who are evidently tasked with keeping watch on this forum. Another clue is the pathetic spelling. It's possible education failed to teach the difference of such 4th grade items as: There or their, it's or its, here or hear... but when someone comes into this forum and reaches for the podium and cannot spell even the basics, in my view, it tends to discredit them. Many from the ranks of the "watchers" make the same spelling mistakes. Then again, they could be the same persons (in their many screen name disguises) repeating the same allegations, endlessly poorly.
Patience, indeed. I will never take it for a personal character flaw that I don't suffer fools kindly. There are quite a few on C.D. They are to higher thought what a swarm of mosquitoes are to the meditating mind.
> There are a group of persons who post here and each one uses multiple screen names.
Proof needed.
> One can tune the ear to recognize them, as they tend to harp on the same themes.
That doesn't confirm that they are the same.
> The same is true for those who always show up and play tag team.
What tag team? Your imaginary one? Show some proof.
> And to make sure that this is not overtly noticed (and to always
> attack me when I point it out), they each use multiple screen names.
You're only alleging. One who alleges carries the burden of proof.
> but we DO know that sites such as this one are being monitored.
You can't possibly know unless you are actually told so. If this site were monitored, it would have gone a long time ago. But if this site is monitored as you claim, then why do you post here if you don't think it's safe? This is the 21st century and everyone is welcome to post on this site. Nobody has to conform to your personal views or ideas.
> Then again, they could be the same persons
> (in their many screen name disguises) repeating
> the same allegations, endlessly poorly.
Could be but you can't be sure. You're only guessing.
> I don't know if they work for Homeland Security or its equivalent
Finally a little honesty. What took you so long?
> I don't believe for one moment that raising the taxes on the highest 1% of earners > or even the top 5% will solve our problem. We are going to have to raise taxes
> across the board.
The Bush tax cuts plan already reduced the top rates closer to middle class income rates.
How can you complain that Wolf makes "ideological" points when you do the same? "spending stop (is) prudent policy"; "suggesting a socialist economic ... is theater of the absurd"; "much of the crisis is not capitalism, but the cost (of) social promises"
Those sound pretty much like ideological arguments to me. You are simply regurgitating Republican talking points. There is a mountain of economic theory supporting government spending as counter-cyclical (Keynesianism); "theater of the absurd" is just name calling; "cost of social promises" sidesteps the fact that plenty of money seems to find its way into the bank accounts of the megarich, but for some reason "social promises" are too expensive.
Don't be a hypocrite.
Regurgitating Republican talking points my foot. Anytime anyone disagrees with a point its a "Republican talking point" or "right wing"
However you may have a point about calling his points ideological rather than just addressing their foolishness.
"cost of social promises" was simply a reply to his opinion that the current problem is caused by capitalist economies rather than the overspending of governments promising too much.
Or that a socialist economic system could be created that would work better when it never has as he admits.
Republican or democrat, left or right, anyone that can't understand simple economics is simoply foolish. Forget the "theories", none of which have worked yet, from Ronnie to Barack.
When you spens too much, stop it, when your income is too low raise it, when you heve both, do both.
That doesn't seem hypocritical to me. I believe most both sides have to get over the idea that the other side never tells the truth and is never right nor has good ideas.
"Or that a socialist economic system could be created that would work better when it never has as he admits."
The period from WWII to the early 1970's was the golden era of capitalism in the West. Growth was robust and egalitarian. During this time most governments, including our own, were lead by social democrats and on every economic front we were far closer to anything you can call "socialism" than today. Since then, on every economic level we have moved far closer to a "free market" and the effects have been horrific. You can not point to a single thing on the economic front in which the move towards a "free market" has been a net gain for any country. In addition to what I posted above, growth has slowed down decade after decade (it was higher in the 70's than in the 80's, higher in the 80's than 90's, higher in the 90's than this decade and we're leading into the next decade doing even worse). Again, marginal tax rates have declined, as have corporate taxes, far weaker unions, trade and financial liberalization, no price or capital controls, the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflaiton, I could go on and on. The record is clear, and it isn't for us on the left to have to defend.
"When you spens too much, stop it, when your income is too low raise it, when you heve both, do both."
Since you say that you know economics, show us some proof that spending is higher relative to GDP than it was decades ago. You can't because it isn't, and that INCLUDES spending on the military, which is unsustainable and which has exploded in recent decades. The decades long stagnating and declining wages (which also reduce government tax recepts), the decades long cuts in marginal and corporate taxes and the increased reliance on for profit organizations to do what the government used to do (worse and at a far higher cost) are why we are in this pickle.
"I believe most both sides have to get over the idea that the other side never tells the truth and is never right nor has good ideas."
The problem is that you cannot assume that both have equally valid points on the issue. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. On an economic front, as I've said, we have moved towards a "free market" and the effects are far worse than when we were closer to anything you can call "socialism". Alternatives have been proposed by endless amounts of radical/progressive economists, and progressive experiments are being attempted the world over that are vastly better than the movement we've seen towards a "free market". The experiments have been ignored NOT because of their effects, if that were the case then there would be no defense of the direction we've been going in for decades, but for self serving, ideological reasons by those in power. What has benefited the right wing think tanks, Wall Street, financial capital, millionarie pundits and politicians, has not benefited the general public. It also hasn't benefited domestic industrial capital, in case you haven't noticed.
"The period from WWII to the early 1970's was the golden era of capitalism in the West. Growth was robust and egalitarian. During this time most governments, including our own, were lead by social democrats and on every economic front we were far closer to anything you can call "socialism" than today. Since then, on every economic level we have moved far closer to a "free market" and the effects have been horrific. You can not point to a single thing on the economic front in which the move towards a "free market" has been a net gain for any country. In addition to what I posted above, growth has slowed down decade after decade (it was higher in the 70's than in the 80's, higher in the 80's than 90's, higher in the 90's than this decade and we're leading into the next decade doing even worse). Again, marginal tax rates have declined, as have corporate taxes, far weaker unions, trade and financial liberalization, no price or capital controls, the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflaiton, I could go on and on. The record is clear"
The problem here is that I totally agree with your statement.
Now, what is the difference? Why and how did this change? And why if you agree that it functioned thast well in the period you speak of, why do you now say it wouldn't again if the same rules, protections and regulations were in place?
"The problem is that you cannot assume that both have equally valid points on the issue"
I don't assume that. But neither do I assume because it was on "Fox" it must be false or if its stated by a republican it must be a lie, or that all their policy suggestions are bad.
I think you may be confusing my support of a certain our capitalist economy as it was and should be still with what we have now, which doesn't deserve to be put out by aiming bodily water at it. Its a perversion of our capitalist economy as it was and should be still.
"Why and how did this change? And why if you agree that it functioned thast well in the period you speak of, why do you now say it wouldn't again if the same rules, protections and regulations were in place?"
Look, I have a background in economics and have studied this. Economists do know why. Beginning in the late 1960's/early 1970's there was a profitability crisis in the West due to high wages and high rents (especially energy rents). Again, growth was large and egalitarian, workers were doing well. This was, and is, squeezing profits. So capitalists responded by relying more on finance and turning increasingly towards developing countries. The problem is that the reliance on finance is not sustainable and profits in the real economy, especially domestically, are still a problem. There also is not another China or India to add to the labor pool to drive down wages and increase profitability. Again, throw in the ecological wall we're hitting. Capitalism is based on endless growth and we live in a world of finite world resources. There is only so much we can consume before the costs outweigh the benefits, when we consume beyond the sustainable level, and there is only so much we can pollute. If the monetary base and financial markets don't endlessly grow we run into problems, like we're facing now. So, again, how does capitalism solve this? We have SOME harmony because of growth, if you aren't doing well now the economy will grow next year and you can get a larger share of the pie. What happens when growth stops? What happens when all the resources needed to survive are in the hands of a small capitalist class? This is a problem that classical economists like Ricardo and JS Mill identified by the way a few hundred years ago. Read Mill's "The Stationary State" or Herman Daly's book "Beyond Growth".
I gotta go. Bye.
It sounds like you've been reading Minqi Li. Excellent stuff, your posts. Do come back.
Thank you. It is awesome you are saying that. I read Li's book about two months ago and I thought to myself, here is a person saying what I've been thinking. I felt like I finally wasn't a crazy man screaming into the forest. I'm sure you have heard of Foster's book on the Financial crisis? If not, check it out, it's really good.
You didn't actually say anything in your post other than "I'm an apologist for capitalism and I don't like it when people criticize my fetish."
Perhaps you could de-construct the article a bit more meticulously and thoughtfully otherwise folks may think you have nothing to offer other than empty words.
Verbosity is not always helpful. Many times its just verbosity.
As is critiquing capitalism without offering a proven viable alternative or crying socialist economic policies "just never got a fair chance"
Not that I'm disagreeing I didn't deconstruct the article in a more thoughtful and meticulous manner, but time after time I see the same comments I just made accepted without criticism or fault.
Lets just say I find quite a bit of double standard posting here. So I claim the same perogative.
For example.... "I'm an apologist for capitalism and I don't like it when people criticize my fetish."
All that said, I'll give the article another shot later today as your point is not altogether incorrect. I'll try the old 1-2-3 method.
I could just as easily say to many of your postings that you are " an apologist for socialism and I don't like it when people criticize my fetish." or " "I'm anti military, anti defense and I don't like it when people criticize my fetish."
Its like your constant statements of the Military budget is this many $$$$ but you never break out the non defense spending added to defense bills.
"As is critiquing capitalism without offering a proven viable alternative or crying socialist economic policies "just never got a fair chance""
In order for you to say this you have to prove that you yourself have looked for alternatives and they don't exist. If that is the case, you didn't look too hard.
Since you haven't I'll provide you with some links
"The Experience of the Participative Budget in Porto Alegre Brazil"
http://www.unesco.org/most/southa13.htm
Participatory Budgeting in Kerala India
http://www.countercurrents.org/eco-thomas180305.htm
The Emilia Romagna region in Italy has a massive cooperative movement, based in the soical economy
http://www.coopseurope.coop/spip.php?article636
The pariticipatory economics of Robin Hahnel (who also has amazing critiques not only of capitalism but markets themselves)
http://www.zcommunications.org/overcoming-blind-spots-in-left-vision-participatory-planning-by-robin-hahnel
The Mondragon Cooperative movement in Spain
http://www.iisd.org/50comm/commdb/desc/d13.htm
The cooperatives in Venezuela, the largest in Latin America, in what Venezuela calls the "social economy"
http://www.zcommunications.org/venezuela-not-what-you-think-by-robin-hahnel
"Horizontalism" in Argentina (there's also a documentary called "The Take", about the Argentina movement)
http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/latin-america-rising/horizontalidad-where-everyone-leads
I could provide endless amounts of other links if you'd like.
This is all in addition to the fact that "socialism" did the West well when it was implemented, it has done Venezuela well relative to other developing countries (the UN, WHO, the World Bank and the OAS amongst others have said as much, I have them available if you'd like) and Cuba (on human development at least) has done well relative to other developing countries. Hell, I don't think you can even say Russia and Eastern Europe is better off since the fall of communism, and that says a lot. Eastern Europe has been the hardest hit by the economic collapse and wasn't doing well to begin with.
Thanks.
But aren't all these either regional or local, cooperatives etc that have never been used for a whole economic system in a country? Or in the case of Venezuela and Argentina simply again trying to implement systems that have been tried before (even in those same countries)and failed every time?
"The Mondragon Cooperative movement in Spain" For example exists within a capitalist economic system of the country, its not the system of the country. Obviously a capitalist economic system can support other systems within it as the function because of it.
I've looked at every system I can find and for examplec of where its been successful (long term) as almost any system can exist till it consumes the existing wealth or its citizens tire of the lack of wealth sharing endemic in soxcialist systems and certainly possible under capatilist systems.
"Or in the case of Venezuela and Argentina simply again trying to implement systems that have been tried before and failed every time?"
No, that would be neo-liberalism, capitalism. Pre-Chavez Venezuela was a capitalist disaster. Why was Venezuela the site of the first revolt in Latin America against the structural adjustment programs you seem to be in favor of? Have any clue? Why have Venezuelans seen the biggest increase in happiness in the region since 1998, the year Chavez took over, according to the Gallup of Latin Ameria Latinobarometro? Why have they seen the biggest increases in poverty reduction, illiteracy, and lack of education? How has Argentina pulled out of their "free market" economic collapse? Have any clue? How was that free market disaster different from the Peron period?
I'm sorry but it is obvious that you know nothing about what I gave you and are just trying to dissagree with what I'm saying. The cooperative movements in Spain and Italy are decades old, dating back really to WWII. In the case of Spain, you could say that the social economy predates the 20th century and was the foundation of the Spanish Revolution/Civil War.
"For example exists within a capitalist economic system of the country, its not the system of the country."
Then the USSR wasn't socialist because it existed in a world capitalist system and was surrounded by capitalist countries. It implemented the gold standard, had a market (including a labor market) too. I guess the benefit is one way anyway. The social economy of Spain benefits from the capitalist economy but it is impossible the other way around. For example, necessary products, capital, is produced far more efficiently and cheaper in the cooperative economy and the capitalist economy uses the cheaper capital produced in the social economy for production. You didn't ask for a socialist island unto itself, you asked for alternatives to capitalism and capitalist institutions and I gave you a small taste. You responded too quickly to read what I posted and it is clear you didn't know about them before I posted.
Besides, capitalism did not just get born one day. It took hundreds of years to emerge from feudalism, and along the way there were massive failures, there were many times where capitalism took many steps back. Little pockets of capitalism developed and grew slowly. The internal contridictions of feudalism caused its collapse however and, as I said, the internal contidictions of capitalism are doing that now. Profits in the real economy have been a problem since the early 1970's, which is why capitalism is relying more and more on finance. However, that is not sustainable. How can the system continue if profits in the real economy are increasingly difficult and continued reliance on finance is not sustainable. Throw in ecological walls that we're approaching (where capitalism is based on endless growth in a world of finite resources). I always ask these questions and never get good answers, because they don't exist.
Wilber1,
Kudos to your incredible intellect. Please don't leave this site...
Clarity, reason, and evidence... Excellent. Good on ya mate.
Cheers
Thanks again.
Obviously a capitalist economic system can support other systems within it as the function because of it.
------------------------------
That is the strangest comment I've seen in awhile. Honestly, it is. Are you trying to tell us that Capitalism isn't in competition with socialism? Surely you're not!
The reality is that Capitalism cannot yet quite enforce full slavery to its paradigm, and so socialist systems can exist as an alternative. Socialism is ALWAYS chosen voluntarily where Capitalism dominates. Of course, because Capitalism pays lavish "protection money" to politicians, Capitalism *does* dominate, the whole world 'round.
Yet, socialist economic systems are currently chosen -voluntarily, I emphasise again- by more than 800M people around the world. That's about 1/7 or so of the entire population of the Earth. Considering that in most places Capitalism can sell more cheaply, the fact that so many choose socialism anyway should tell you something about how people feel about the two paradigms. Mondragón, for example, is set up such that working there is a way to get a living, not get wealthy. And people who could make more working for a non-socialist conglomerate choose to stay at Mondragón for that very reason. It's such a powerful attraction that Mondragón has grown from a shed with 5 young out-of-work engineers and a one-eyed priest into one of the largest corporate networks in the world, all on the socialist model. And in cooperation with the Steelworkers' Union it's now spreading its hideous socialist tentacles into the US! Horrors! Run for your life!
To paraphrase a VN-era poster: Capitalism is not healthy for children and other living things. And at least 1 in 7 of the living things know it.
"The general population is insisting that the spending stop and not because the "lenders" want it, but because its prudent policy."
First problem, the general population ISN'T asking that it be stopped, unless the "general population" are the millionare pundits, the millionare lobbyists and politicians. They are asking far more to create jobs, which will no happen with pro-cyclical junk economics. See, if you actually knew a damn thing about economics you'd realize that PRODUCTIVE private investment is simply not there and hasn't been for a long time. If you cut back government spending you decrease aggregate demand further, causing far more harm than good. It makes no sense to have an economic system that harms far more people than it helps. People can't pay their bills and the debt they (and industrial capital) have accrued in the last few decades, with "individual liberty" or whatever other junk economics is out there. You aren't helping the capitalist cause if people over time see no reason to preserve the capitalist system. It has to deliver the goods, and platitudes won't do that.
"Saying that capitalism's cycles are "failures" is disingenuous to say the least and suggesting a socialist economic system is the answer in the light of current circumstances is theater of the absurd."
When you have an economic system that relies on fianance like we do (finance, an industry that literally produces nothing, now accounts for 45% of US corporate profits), when the economy has caused wages to stagnate or decline for the majority of the country for 35-40 years (outside of a few debt fueled periods), when the country has been decome de-industrialized, when inequality has exploded, YOU have to defend the economic system, and with something more than platitudes. It is not on us to defend what is the only thing within the capitalist economy that has ever worked, something like social democracy. Marginal and corporate taxes are a fraction of what they used to be, unions are not nearly as strong as they used to be, trade and finance is far more liberalized than decades ago, there are no price or wage controls, all of this is a move away from anything you can call "socialism" and it has been an unmitigated disaster. Neo-liberalism, after decades of destructive implementation, is still waiting for its first success.
"He neglects to point out that much of the crisis is not capitalism, but the cost social promises and policies that the capitalist economy can no longer keep up with."
He neglects to point this out because it has no basis in reality. What you are saying COULD be true if there weren't enough natural resources to take care of everyone. There are enough natural resourses though, it is a matter of finance. No one in their right mind can argue that there is not enough financial capital in the world to solve the world's problems, as I said, finance is far too big and there is FAR too much fianancial capital in the world as is (thanks in part to profitability difficulties in the real economy, which capitalism is not going to be able to solve in the long run, the increasing reliance on finance as a result of this and the explosion in inequality the world over). The money is there, the political will isn't.
What you are saying is that in order to save capital accumulation we should force the majority of people's living standards, in the West and elsewhere, to decline. We should, in other words, destroy people's living standards in order to save the system. You might win now, but you're policies will dig your grave.
Karl Polanyi wrote about the "double movement" in his classic The Great Transformation. He said that free market utopian economists, what Michael Hudson calls junk economists, implement policies that harm the population, but benefit them. Society reacts against this by trying to protect themselves from the horrific effects of these policies and so there is a "double movement". The elites moving to self serving, usustainable policies and the movement of society in the opposie direction in order to protect themselves. That is where we're at. Sometimes society, in order to protect itself from needless, horrible economic policies goes too far and the movement in the other direction causes just as many problems (which he said, rightly I think, helped lead to Hitler, Franco and Stalin). Either way, whatever happens in response to the move towards the utopian "free market" is responsible for the carnage that follows.
Huuummmm.....
I'll simply disagree with you, the general public has made it quite clear that they have had more than enough of the useless spending going on. I absolutely agree that the general public has been saying for years now that jobs are their #1 priority.
"It makes no sense to have an economic system that harms far more people than it helps"
I totally agree. But a capitalist economic system should not do that. Every socialist economic system has done just that, every single time. But our capitalist economic system generated the wealthiest nation with the most people sharing in that wealth than any other system in the world had ever done before.
So take that period and ask yourself what is the difference in the system then and the system now. There you will find the answer to what we SHOULD be doing.
And I must argue that government spending producing nothing but more debt and less help for citizens (which is what we have now) is not worthy of doing.
"YOU have to defend the economic system, and with something more than platitudes"
First, I'm not defending the capitalist economic system that is in place now, not by a longshot. Its been hamstrung by government failures and corruption.
"when the country has been decome de-industrialized, when inequality has exploded, YOU have to defend the economic system, and with something more than platitudes." "Marginal and corporate taxes are a fraction of what they used to be, unions are not nearly as strong as they used to be, trade and finance is far more liberalized than decades ago"
I don't disagree with this at all. I simply point out that it was not our economic system that did these things, it was the CHANGES made to it that caused them. Thats a vast difference in my book.
"He neglects to point this out because it has no basis in reality. What you are saying COULD be true if there weren't enough natural resources to take care of everyone......"
What you are speaking of here is "capitalists" not "capitalism." Its like saying immigrant when referring to both legal and illegal immigrants. Not the same thing at all.
"What you are saying is that in order to save capital accumulation we should force the majority of people's living standards, in the West and elsewhere, to decline. We should, in other words, destroy people's living standards in order to save the system. You might win now, but you're policies will dig your grave."
Not at all. I'm suggesting that our capitalist economy be restored, its laws and protections be restored, its regulations restored and enforced. Our trade and tax laws restored to sanity.
There is no such thing as the "free market"
"The elites moving to self serving, unsustainable policies and the movement of society in the opposite direction in order to protect themselves. That is where we're at."
I think thats a pretty fair description.
"I'll simply disagree with you, the general public has made it quite clear that they have had more than enough of the useless spending going on."
The polls show that far more people are concerned with jobs than spending, and you cannot create jobs at this point in time without government spending. It is a fact, it is not arguable. You seem to not realize that all spending is not equal. Spending to prop up banks and on war is not equal to spending productively.
"But our capitalist economic system generated the wealthiest nation with the most people sharing in that wealth than any other system in the world had ever done before...Every socialist economic system has done just that"
Does history, does reality matter? I guess I'd need you to define "socialism". We were closer to socialism the 25 years after WWII than now and we far better of than now. I detailed the ways this was the case. There is a Korean economist Ha Joon Chang who has studied what economic policies have lead to economic development and what haven't. The US, in addition to everything I pointed out, was the most protectionist country in the world from about the early 19th century to about WWII. The second most protectionist was Britain. Most of technology comes out of the state, mainly the largest socialist institution in the world, the US military. Without the military there is no interent, computers, sattelites, cell phones, civilian aircraft (which are just modified bombers), amongst other things. None of this has anything to do with capitalism. Hell, Chang's native country, South Korea, is called "capitalist" but it wasn't really that much different than the old USSR. Massive state protection of domestic industry, one party rule, massive capital and trade controls (it was actually a crime punishable by death to export capital there at one time), very tough laws on foreign ownership and an increasingly militant trade union. Again, how it was called "capitalism", it wasn't.
Change identified TWO countries (the Netherlands and Switzerland) who could have said to develop along what are called "free market" lines. Every other country, without exception and especially the US and Britain, did so with massive state intervention in the economy.
"First, I'm not defending the capitalist economic system that is in place now, not by a longshot. Its been hamstrung by government failures and corruption."
How is the government deciding to hand over its basic funcitona to private corporations, who have done a horrible job for far more money, a result of GOVERNMENT failure? Isn't it a basic tenent of capitalism that private is better? How is the government not regulating private industry, and liberalizing finance and trade a government failure? The capitalists, going back to classical economics, have said that government intervention in the economy is unjust, and that private entities will do far better based on the profit motive. Their failure is their own doing.
If you are arguing a returning to the past, when things like taxes were higher, regulation was strong, and the like then you are talking about something not much different than what is usually called a "social market economy". That is, once again, far closer to socialism than capitalism.
Let's also not ignore the fact that our military is the most violent, reactionary military in the world, by far the worse since WWII and that has been key in our economic standing. Britain was the same. It crushed Egypt's, India's, Ireland's and Bangladesh's industrial bases (amongst others) because of a fear of potential competition (declaring in the case of Egypt that they would never let the country become developed). Bangladesh was doing relatively well when the British arrived, when they arrived in Dhaka they described it as an amazing industrial center. Look at it now. Look at what the West has done through the IMF, GATT, the WTO and the World Bank. Capitalist plunder, and that has a lot to do with your well being, and their lack of well being. There is a finite amount of resources in the world, if the West consumes like it does there aren't enough resources to make the rest anything BUT poverty stricken.
WILBER: Thank you for taking the time to share your insights. As for Mighty Mite, he uses numerous screen names and has made his unfounded allegations against socialism redundantly. Some of the best-educated posters in this forum have pointed out the flaws in his knee-jerk conjecture, but that has not stopped him from repeating the same tired, flawed arguments. Perhaps your posts will educate others.
That is very nice of you, thank you. I have enjoyed your posts for a while on this forum as well.