GE and Crony Capitalism - We should all be against this

[sjt18]

Because elves like you always want to inject government into the equation.

And the free market does not guide us, we guide the free market.

The free market is nothing more than the economics of Natural Law. The more your system agrees with it, the more free and wealthy your society will be. The less your system agrees with it, the more enslaved and impoverished the society will be.

The free market is impersonal... it is in reality "law" similar to gravity. We neither guide it in the truest since nor are guided by it. It would be more accurate to say that we are rewarded for respecting and using it and punished if we don't.

 

[sjt18]

Did you turn into me suddenly?

Simple, transparent, progressive. There is no doubt if everyone paid their fair share, the vast majority of the population would be paying a lot less.

There is only one reason to have a convoluted tax scheme - so those with the means can avoid them.

And yet you continually propose to grow gov't so that the elites can even further exempt themselves.

 

[sjt18]

There is no "free market" (another so-called "Letter to Santa Claus") and this is what has happened since the advent of state capitalism (again, utopian to believe there is a magic nirvana-land where the free market guides us infallibly with its "invisible hand.")

At its worst, the free market does a better job than any centrally controlled system like those you advocate. Yes it is messy and difficult at times.... but always better over time than any other system. BTW, I do not equate free market to capitalism.

You are truly delusional though. You keep exempting the role big gov't plays in all of this. It is the very Keynesian ideals in action advocated strongly by you that creates the conditions where this stuff is possible.

No. The free market isn't a "letter to Santa Claus". It WAS the accepted paradigm until the progressives took over in the early 20th century. Until that time, a long string of Presidents and Congresses refused to interfere in any significant way. The country had and overcame several depressions... very quickly.

The longest depression was the one where YOUR ideals were used as the response.

 

[volinbham]

At its worst, the free market does a better job than any centrally controlled system like those you advocate. Yes it is messy and difficult at times..

I would imagine that this is the widely held view by FM advocates. The "utopia/nirvana" crap is a typical strawman argument.

I don't no any FM advocates that claim it be perfect or even close to perfect. Most view as the best option.

 

[therealUT]

I would imagine that this is the widely held view by FM advocates. The "utopia/nirvana" crap is a typical strawman argument.

I don't no any FM advocates that claim it be perfect or even close to perfect. Most view as the best option.

Yellow=proceed with caution or slow down.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[milohimself]

They didn't kiss the ring.

This is EXACTLY what you should expect when you get the Progressive solutions advocated by LG, gibbs, and others.

They bristle at the notion that the modern Dem party is basically fascism on economic issues but this is exactly what fascism did. Private ownership is allowed but ascendancy in business is not due to merit. It is accomplished through politics. Supporters of the "Party" are rewarded while those who resist or dissent are punished.

IF you allow gov't to be anything more than the referree upholding the RIGHTS of all blindly (rule of law) then things like this are inevitable... as are things like TARP, the "stimulus" payola plans,... All the while the Progressives (Dems and establishment Republicans) will claim they are just taking care of their constituents.

And that is vastly different from the Republicans, how exactly? The very political system we have is screwed, the behavior of both parties is just a result.

I would imagine that this is the widely held view by FM advocates. The "utopia/nirvana" crap is a typical strawman argument.

I don't no any FM advocates that claim it be perfect or even close to perfect. Most view as the best option.

Same, we only differ on the degrees of "free-ness".

As a market gets freer, you are going to see more people below the poverty line, disadvantaged, etc., it sucks but it's the way it works. There is no utopia.

 

[volinbham]

Same, we only differ on the degrees of "free-ness".

As a market gets freer, you are going to see more people below the poverty line, disadvantaged, etc., it sucks but it's the way it works. There is no utopia.

I would say we've become decidely less "free-market" since the 60s "war on poverty" and the lot of those at the bottom hasn't improved one bit and is potentially worse depending on metric.

Perhaps in a true laissez-faire situation you get more below the poverty line but I don't see how freeing up our current approach would have this impact.

 

[utgibbs]

The free market is nothing more than the economics of Natural Law. The more your system agrees with it, the more free and wealthy your society will be. The less your system agrees with it, the more enslaved and impoverished the society will be.

The free market is impersonal... it is in reality "law" similar to gravity. We neither guide it in the truest since nor are guided by it. It would be more accurate to say that we are rewarded for respecting and using it and punished if we don't.

I'm glad to hear you say it, but Milton Friedman strongly disagrees.

 

[utgibbs]

And that is vastly different from the Republicans, how exactly? The very political system we have is screwed, the behavior of both parties is just a result.

Living in the time of Capital.... You are absolutely correct. Capital is the pre-eminent supra-parliamentary force of our times. Our two right wings serve its need first and foremost.

As a market gets freer, you are going to see more people below the poverty line, disadvantaged, etc., it sucks but it's the way it works. There is no utopia.

Truth. It will get a lot worse than just "disadvantaged" though. It's end-logic is, of course, totalitarianism.

Good post, milo. :hi:

 

[milohimself]

Ever thought about it's upsides?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

I would say we've become decidely less "free-market" since the 60s "war on poverty" and the lot of those at the bottom hasn't improved one bit and is potentially worse depending on metric.

Perhaps in a true laissez-faire situation you get more below the poverty line but I don't see how freeing up our current approach would have this impact.

We changed policy dramatically to neoliberalism in the 1970s. It is certainly closer to the "free market" (sic) ideals than the Keynesian period preceeding. The War on Poverty has become the War on the Poor. Not even the most soaked apologist for Capital denies the growing income gap and the restoration of elite class power over the last 40 years.

There is not one metric from the real world to support this post, I'm afraid.

Now, admittedly, a laissez-faire system wold have collapsed and imploded faster than the USSR two to three times already over this period. Perhaps that is what you mean?

 

[volinbham]

We changed policy dramatically to neoliberalism in the 1970s. It is certainly closer to the "free market" (sic) ideals than the Keynesian period preceeding. The War on Poverty has become the War on the Poor. Not even the most soaked apologist for Capital denies the growing income gap and the restoration of elite class power over the last 40 years.

There is not one metric from the real world to support this post, I'm afraid.

Now, admittedly, a laissez-faire system wold have collapsed and imploded faster than the USSR two to three times already over this period. Perhaps that is what you mean?

Given your answer, I'm more sure than ever that I'm correct.

 

[utgibbs]

Given your answer, I'm more sure than ever that I'm correct.

Didn't Guns and Roses have a double album called Use Your Illusions, or something.....

Believe me, there is a lot more.

 

[volinbham]

Didn't Guns and Roses have a double album called Use Your Illusions, or something.....

Believe me, there is a lot more.

Now find a plot showing the increase in government meddling via programs, quasi-govt agencies, regulations, etc. over the same time period. We've become decidely less free market over the time period.

 

[n_huffhines]

We changed policy dramatically to neoliberalism in the 1970s. It is certainly closer to the "free market" (sic) ideals than the Keynesian period preceeding. The War on Poverty has become the War on the Poor. Not even the most soaked apologist for Capital denies the growing income gap and the restoration of elite class power over the last 40 years.

Have you read Losing Ground?

Who cares about income gaps if everyone is enjoying a higher standard of living than in years past? It shouldn't be about relative wealth, but absolute wealth.

 

[n_huffhines]

Now find a plot showing the increase in government meddling via programs, quasi-govt agencies, regulations, etc. over the same time period. We've become decidely less free market over the time period.

No doubt. Every year there is more and more regulation. Nobody can argue this.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Have you read Losing Ground?

Who cares about income gaps if everyone is enjoying a higher standard of living than in years past? It shouldn't be about relative wealth, but absolute wealth.

Anathema to his lunacy. I've been saying that since everyone started blathering about relative income, but it typically just ends it until another time.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

Now find a plot showing the increase in government meddling via programs, quasi-govt agencies, regulations, etc. over the same time period. We've become decidely less free market over the time period.

Deregulation of business has been the norm. See Enron for results. See Last Great Bailout of Capital System thanks to deregulation (most importantly Glass-Steagal repeal) under a Democrat.

"Work-fare" vs "Welfare" under a Democrat president.

NAFTA under a Democrat which is one of the primary reason for the migrations north across the southern border.

WTO under a Democrat which has enshrined the Welfare-Dad neoliberal state.

Government has grown - military, policiing, and social safety net for corporate and financial interests. Capital is, and has always been, the biggest Welfare-Dad of them all.

Deregulation, austerity (for people, not corporate interests), liberalization of trade and deregulation of Capital. These have been the norms. The results are completely predictable.

 

[utgibbs]

No doubt. Every year there is more and more regulation. Nobody can argue this.

No one with any facts from the real world can argue what you are arguing. As I have demonstrated. If you want to know more, pick up the very bourgeois history of Daniel Yergin The Commanding Heights.

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

 

[utgibbs]

Have you read Losing Ground?

Who cares about income gaps if everyone is enjoying a higher standard of living than in years past? It shouldn't be about relative wealth, but absolute wealth.

I find it difficult to find an argument more sold out to the man than this one. "Soaked in the dominant culture" as I like to say.

So, what is the argument? We have cell phones and computers now? Meanwhile, people are working longer and harder for less than they made in 1975. They have less real purchasing power (DESPITE another member of the household entering the workforce), and, by the way, I'm willing to bet it is overlooking half the world too.

If this is the premise, this is the cheapest and most intellectually impoverished rationalization I've ever heard. People arguing this line can rightly be described by one word:

Suckers.

PS - I bet this increase in SoL praised by the book is accompanied by a decrease in QoL. Technological increases have been happening (generally within the public sphere, even in our times) since the Pleistocene. To suggest what you're suggesting is to simply forget all of human history (ah, the time-horizon of Capital) and to be a real sucker. The period before this glorious increase in SoL was accompanied by an even greater increase in SoL and QoL....

 

[droski]

We have cell phones and computers now? Meanwhile, people are working longer and harder for less than they made in 1975.

are you really arguing the average person in the 70s could afford the 70s equivalent of a cell phone and computer? please explain how they are making less if they have twice as much crap?

 

[milohimself]

Because crap costs half as much to make, relative to the 70's.

 

[utgibbs]

are you really arguing the average person in the 70s could afford the 70s equivalent of a cell phone and computer? please explain how they are making less if they have twice as much crap?

It's not me saying it. It's not the communists saying it. It's not the socialists saying it.

It's the bourgeois economists saying it. (Note, graph would be worse normalized to 1970 dollars).

Although I note with relish your twice as much crap line. If they are enjoying the spiritual and intellectual rewards of "more stuff" (absolutely dubious at this point), there are three things which stand out over the period:

1. Another household member in the workforce.
2. The enormity of personal debt.
3. The increase in average work week.

Your proposition is absolutely dubious in the first instance, but I won't knock it down here. Let's run with it. These are the costs of twice as much crap.

As ringing an indictment of the system as I could hope to provide, droski. You are proving to be quite the comrade! :hi:

 

[sjt18]

Deregulation of business has been the norm. See Enron for results. See Last Great Bailout of Capital System thanks to deregulation (most importantly Glass-Steagal repeal) under a Democrat.

"Work-fare" vs "Welfare" under a Democrat president.

NAFTA under a Democrat which is one of the primary reason for the migrations north across the southern border.

WTO under a Democrat which has enshrined the Welfare-Dad neoliberal state.

Government has grown - military, policiing, and social safety net for corporate and financial interests. Capital is, and has always been, the biggest Welfare-Dad of them all.

Deregulation, austerity (for people, not corporate interests), liberalization of trade and deregulation of Capital. These have been the norms. The results are completely predictable.

You keep recognizing the right problem then prescribing the same "solution" that created the problem to start with. Gov't being a player rather than referree IS THE PROBLEM. Your solutions do nothing but make them a bigger player and determiner of outcomes than they are now.

Free Markets... not necessarily the capitalist system as it now exists... IS THE SOLUTION.

For you and other Dems or Dem leaners, which "big business" companies come to mind when you think "no competition/too big to fail/etc"? Who do they tend to support politically?

That's right... go ahead... you can admit it.

 

[n_huffhines]

No one with any facts from the real world can argue what you are arguing. As I have demonstrated. If you want to know more, pick up the very bourgeois history of Daniel Yergin The Commanding Heights.

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

Honestly I hate to bring the discussion to this, but you are absolutely insane if you think government is becoming less involved (whether socially or economically). Everyday they get more and more involved. On Stossel the other day they talked about 63 or so federal financial education programs and they can't even accurately tell us how much the programs cost. Ain't that some irony?

If you think we are deregulating I am not sure we can have an intelligent conversation about his. These departments are growing in number and adding regulations every year. Not reducing them.

List of United States federal agencies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia