Capitalism vs Corporatism

[Truthmatters]

The word crisis is not synonomus with evil

Ask me how shocked I am that you completely missed the fucking point.

ask me how shocked I am you again refuse to prove with facts what you claim

 

[konradv]

The hallmark of corporatist capitalism is that those in power seek to mitigate normal cpaitlism and replace normal market forces with government controlled market forces.

Both parties are party to this system, folks.

BOTH parties.

You forgot "... and that's why we need public financing of elections".

Here we go with this argument again......

At least I have one. Better than snotty comebacks and posts that don't really say anything. What's your solution beyond, we have to elect better representitives?

 

[zeke]

Corporatism or capitalism.

We live in a plutocracy.

Why would those in the plutocracy want to dismantle ANYTHING, that is currently working in their favor?

But it is sweet that many of you think we have a real say in this mess.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You forgot "... and that's why we need public financing of elections".

Here we go with this argument again......

At least I have one. Better than snotty comebacks and posts that don't really say anything. What's your solution beyond, we have to elect better representitives?

We've been over this before. You have to take government out of the business sector entirely. Their job is to protect and uphold the constitution, our rights and keepa sane monetary policy. Public campaign finance isn't going to stop politicians from taking money from donors who wish to see rules, regulations and subsidies bent to their favor. If politicians can not sway the market in these ways, there is no reason why corps and industries would pump money into politicians as it would all be for not.

 

[konradv]

Corporatism or capitalism.

We live in a plutocracy.

Why would those in the plutocracy want to dismantle ANYTHING, that is currently working in their favor?

But it is sweet that many of you think we have a real say in this mess.

That's why we need a groundswell for public financing. The only way we're going to have a say is, if WE'RE paying the freight. Why aren't Tea Party types seeing this? IMO, it's a totally non-partisan issue and would end up costing us less in the long run, since our representitives wouldn't have so many expensive backroom promises to keep.

 

[zeke]

That's why we need a groundswell for public financing

Not going to happen. Plutocrats worked long and hard to get the SCOTUS to give the corporation's personhood status. They will not give that up. Ever. Makes it way to easy to buy an elected position.

If you and I were in the ruling class, we would be very happy with the way things are progressing.
We would have the entire Repub party working on our behalf. How could we not like that?

It is all a matter of perspective.

In this country we need to revisit the "Golden Rule". Those that have the gold (power) rule.

Sad but true.

Need proof. 65% of all Americans think that rich people should pay more in income taxes. Repubs in Congress willfully ignore the wish of reg. Americans to protect plutocrats. What's that tell you?

 

[Truthmatters]

Here we go with this argument again......

At least I have one. Better than snotty comebacks and posts that don't really say anything. What's your solution beyond, we have to elect better representitives?

We've been over this before. You have to take government out of the business sector entirely. Their job is to protect and uphold the constitution, our rights and keepa sane monetary policy. Public campaign finance isn't going to stop politicians from taking money from donors who wish to see rules, regulations and subsidies bent to their favor. If politicians can not sway the market in these ways, there is no reason why corps and industries would pump money into politicians as it would all be for not.

Where is your proof from history unfettered markets will work as you claim they will?

 

[Decepticon]

Here we go with this argument again......

At least I have one. Better than snotty comebacks and posts that don't really say anything. What's your solution beyond, we have to elect better representitives?

We've been over this before. You have to take government out of the business sector entirely. Their job is to protect and uphold the constitution, our rights and keepa sane monetary policy. Public campaign finance isn't going to stop politicians from taking money from donors who wish to see rules, regulations and subsidies bent to their favor. If politicians can not sway the market in these ways, there is no reason why corps and industries would pump money into politicians as it would all be for not.

Take government out of business sector entirely?


Let me know how long after you create your libertarian paradise that you die from Cholera.

Crazy....toys in the attic, he is CRAAAAAZZZZZZYYYYY!!!!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I don't think you ever got here in order to be done here.

Good, solid, typical rebuttal from you though.

 

[konradv]

Here we go with this argument again......

At least I have one. Better than snotty comebacks and posts that don't really say anything. What's your solution beyond, we have to elect better representitives?

We've been over this before. You have to take government out of the business sector entirely. Their job is to protect and uphold the constitution, our rights and keepa sane monetary policy. Public campaign finance isn't going to stop politicians from taking money from donors who wish to see rules, regulations and subsidies bent to their favor. If politicians can not sway the market in these ways, there is no reason why corps and industries would pump money into politicians as it would all be for not.

Sure it would stop them from taking money from corporations. Are you saying they'd be willing to face prison for what's essentially bribery? How would they be able to spend the money? Certainly not on the campaign, then there's the whole "living beyond one's means" bugaboo. How would they hide that? I think you're missing the point, public financing would mean no private donations of any kind.

 

[Truthmatters]

unfettered markets only lead to wealth consolidation.

The people dont much like that world

 

[konradv]

That's why we need a groundswell for public financing

Not going to happen. Plutocrats worked long and hard to get the SCOTUS to give the corporation's personhood status. They will not give that up. Ever. Makes it way to easy to buy an elected position.

If you and I were in the ruling class, we would be very happy with the way things are progressing.
We would have the entire Repub party working on our behalf. How could we not like that?

It is all a matter of perspective.

In this country we need to revisit the "Golden Rule". Those that have the gold (power) rule.

Sad but true.

Need proof. 65% of all Americans think that rich people should pay more in income taxes. Repubs in Congress willfully ignore the wish of reg. Americans to protect plutocrats. What's that tell you?

Nothing you posted changes my mind. My quote above stands. I'm not willing to give up, just because it's hard. Look back in history: NAACP founded in 1909, major Civil Rights Acts passed in the '60s.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

At least I have one. Better than snotty comebacks and posts that don't really say anything. What's your solution beyond, we have to elect better representitives?

We've been over this before. You have to take government out of the business sector entirely. Their job is to protect and uphold the constitution, our rights and keepa sane monetary policy. Public campaign finance isn't going to stop politicians from taking money from donors who wish to see rules, regulations and subsidies bent to their favor. If politicians can not sway the market in these ways, there is no reason why corps and industries would pump money into politicians as it would all be for not.

Sure it would stop them from taking money from corporations. Are you saying they'd be willing to face prison for what's essentially bribery? How would they be able to spend the money? Certainly not on the campaign, then there's the whole "living beyond one's means" bugaboo. How would they hide that? I think you're missing the point, public financing would mean no private donations of any kind.

Oh, yeah. The prison argument again. Because those politicians and their corp. handlers ALWAYS go to jail for misconduct.

The point is, the coprporations that line politicians pockets would be doing so wastefully since no one is able to sway the market in their favor. The polticians can take all the money they want. It doesn't mean shit. So those pumping in the cash would be losing and therefore, stop doing it.

 

[Contumacious]

I see threads around here all the time bashing capitalism, when in fact we do not have a capitalistic system in place any more, we've bastardized it too much. There's no doubt that unchecked capitalism leads to abuses of customers and employees and competitors, but we've gone too far IMHO.

Et tu, Brute?

The system was not "bastardized" , capitalism was substituted for socialism, specifically its offshoot fascism.

While it may be true that some consumers may be abused by Laissez faire capitalism , the customers have the right to boycott those enterprises and switch to their competitor. But history shows that most of those companies which abused their customers were granted MONOPOLY STATUS by the government.

BTW, event though it was alleged that the Standard Oil of New Jersey had cornered 85% of the market NO EVIDENCE was ever produced that it abused its customers.

.

 

[konradv]

We've been over this before. You have to take government out of the business sector entirely. Their job is to protect and uphold the constitution, our rights and keepa sane monetary policy. Public campaign finance isn't going to stop politicians from taking money from donors who wish to see rules, regulations and subsidies bent to their favor. If politicians can not sway the market in these ways, there is no reason why corps and industries would pump money into politicians as it would all be for not.

Sure it would stop them from taking money from corporations. Are you saying they'd be willing to face prison for what's essentially bribery? How would they be able to spend the money? Certainly not on the campaign, then there's the whole "living beyond one's means" bugaboo. How would they hide that? I think you're missing the point, public financing would mean no private donations of any kind.

Oh, yeah. The prison argument again. Because those politicians and their corp. handlers ALWAYS go to jail for misconduct.

The point is, the coprporations that line politicians pockets would be doing so wastefully since no one is able to sway the market in their favor. The polticians can take all the money they want. It doesn't mean shit. So those pumping in the cash would be losing and therefore, stop doing it.

Would be doing so wastefully? Are you talking now, because I don't see that at all? They're constantly swaying the markets, IMO. If you think they're going to stop, you're living in a dream world. It's working for them, why would they stop?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I don't understand your disconnect between GOVERNMENT regulating and subsidizing in favor of those who pay to play. If a politician is taking tons of money to give concessions to an industry that the politician can NOT grant them, why would they give them the money?

For what purpose? That's the whole point. Govt. has no role in dictating the market except for exactly what we see now; corporatism. They may better define laws in order to protect our rights and our private property. Once they start pickign who gets what based on the money they provide, the game is rigged.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Obviously you're not seeing how this whole thing works. Anyway, this waltz has been gone over before.

Good article and it's spot on accurate.

 

[HUGGY]

I see threads around here all the time bashing capitalism, when in fact we do not have a capitalistic system in place any more, we've bastardized it too much. There's no doubt that unchecked capitalism leads to abuses of customers and employees and competitors, but we've gone too far IMHO. We've got too damn many effin' politicians trying to make a name for themselves as crusaders for the public, proposing heavy handed new rules and laws that are costly and ineffective.


snippet:
Capitalism became a world-beater in the 1800’s, when it developed capabilities for endemic innovation. Societies that adopted the capitalist system gained unrivaled prosperity, enjoyed widespread job satisfaction, obtained productivity growth that was the marvel of the world and ended mass privation.

Now the capitalist system has been corrupted. The managerial state has assumed responsibility for looking after everything from the incomes of the middle class to the profitability of large corporations to industrial advancement. This system, however, is not capitalism, but rather an economic order that harks back to Bismarck in the late nineteenth century and Mussolini in the twentieth: corporatism.

In various ways, corporatism chokes off the dynamism that makes for engaging work, faster economic growth, and greater opportunity and inclusiveness. It maintains lethargic, wasteful, unproductive, and well-connected firms at the expense of dynamic newcomers and outsiders, and favors declared goals such as industrialization, economic development, and national greatness over individuals’ economic freedom and responsibility. Today, airlines, auto manufacturers, agricultural companies, media, investment banks, hedge funds, and much more has at some point been deemed too important to weather the free market on its own, receiving a helping hand from government in the name of the “public good.”
.
.
.
snippet:
It seems unlikely that so disastrous a system is sustainable. The corporatist model makes no sense to younger generations who grew up using the Internet, the world’s freest market for goods and ideas. The success and failure of firms on the Internet is the best advertisement for the free market: social networking Web sites, for example, rise and fall almost instantaneously, depending on how well they serve their customers.

Sites such as Friendster and MySpace sought extra profit by compromising the privacy of their users, and were instantly punished as users deserted them to relatively safer competitors like Facebook and Twitter. There was no need for government regulation to bring about this transition; in fact, had modern corporatist states attempted to do so, today they would be propping up MySpace with taxpayer dollars and campaigning on a promise to “reform” its privacy features.

The Internet, as a largely free marketplace for ideas, has not been kind to corporatism. People who grew up with its decentralization and free competition of ideas must find alien the idea of state support for large firms and industries. Many in the traditional media repeat the old line “What's good for Firm X is good for America,” but it is not likely to be seen trending on Twitter.

The legitimacy of corporatism is eroding along with the fiscal health of governments that have relied on it. If politicians cannot repeal corporatism, it will bury itself in debt and default, and a capitalist system could re-emerge from the discredited corporatist rubble. Then “capitalism” would again carry its true meaning, rather than the one attributed to it by corporatists seeking to hide behind it and socialists wanting to vilify it.

Blaming Capitalism for Corporatism - Edmund S. Phelps and Saifedean Ammous - Project Syndicate

The inevitable end result of pure unregulated capitalism is almost the same as pure communism. You end up with one supplier...one media source.....etc..etc... the major difference is that theoretically in communism they vote for thier leaders. When all competition has been gobbled up the customer has no choice....no vote ...no choice but to buy whatever is offered at whatever price is asked.

The example of internet social sites is lame because it is no more of a commitment or neccecesity than buying a pack of gum at your speedy mart.

Capitalism wants to control the whole game..all of the marbles... You do know that in this country water is almost free with millions of sources because water districts are the domain of the public. In some countries capitalists buy up all of the water rights and hold whole societies hostage over one of the most basic and neccesary commmodities. Without water people die. Without facebook...well, you get the picture...I hope.

Gasoline prices, which are critical to all other facets of business in America, are a far better example of where capitalism is heading as it relates to the American economy. The media implies that "the president" is responsible or at the very least should pay the cost of high gas prices...how convenient for the oil companies and speculators.

In a totally regulated system such as Venezuela gas costs about 40 cents a gallon.

One reason gas prices are so high is that 2% of 4 dollars is a lot more profit than 2% of 40 cents. If you haven't noticed the oil companies are experiencing record profits over the last twenty years.

 

[Truthmatters]

where is you proof in history that markets will act as you claim if unfettered?

 

[konradv]

I don't understand your disconnect between GOVERNMENT regulating and subsidizing in favor of those who pay to play. If a politician is taking tons of money to give concessions to an industry that the politician can NOT grant them, why would they give them the money?

For what purpose? That's the whole point. Govt. has no role in dictating the market except for exactly what we see now; corporatism. They may better define laws in order to protect our rights and our private property. Once they start pickign who gets what based on the money they provide, the game is rigged.

Finally, something that makes sense. The game IS rigged, hence my call for public financing. They don't give money to just one politician, but to many on both sides of the aisle. That's why so many say there's no difference between the parties, they've both been co-opted by the way we finance elections.