Corporatists vs. Capitalists (Now with Fun AOL Poll) | 36 comments (36 topical, 0 hidden)
Capitalism sucks Iamrighttherewithyouonthecop (none / 0)

Cenk, you were right-on about the coporatists, but I must disagree with you about capitalism.  Capitalism is a system that will always go wrong because its natural outcome turns out like a game of Monopoly.  Sooner or later we end up where we are today with most wealth and power in the hands of about 5 percent of society. The people have lost control of what they thought was a democracy, but turns out to be a dictatorship run by a council of corporations.  Why else would we have a situation where 60 to 70 percent of the American people favor a Public Option, over 70 percent of doctors favor it and 4 of 5 congressional bills have a public option, but the one bill that kills the PO somehow seems to be the favored one by the Administration, the DLC and the insurance and drug industries?  I own an archaeological contract firm.  It is for-profit, but because I have a genuine interest in conducting meaningful scientific research I spend my profit to further my profession not to buy a second home in the Bahamas. I make a modest living, but I gain a rich reward in the results of my hard work.  I enjoy the freedom that a for-profit incorporation gives me to direct the goals and outcomes of my business, but my goal is not to maximize the money I put in my pocket.  What a sad country we live in, when most people think freedom means the freedom to bilk everyone else, to put as much money in their pocket as possible and to maximize their possessions. What is even more sad and pathetic is that most people in this country don't even have the opportunity to benefit from this pillaging, but yet they defend those that would, simply because they think that this behavior defines being an American. Someday maybe Americans will see that the world simply doesn't have the resources to allow capitalism to serve as the engine of economic growth. What you get is sick people who can't get proper medical care, huge numbers of people who loose their houses and their retirement plans, middle income people who are getting ripped off by the credit card industry, a natural environment that is going rapidly downhill without any apparent concern for intelligent and urgent measures to reverse the effects of global warming and a handful of people burning money like it's paper. Capitalism has an internal logic (maximization), but when this logic is played out and it guides policy we end up with a seemingly illogical and poorly adapted power structure that wastes our resources and does violence to the common good. It can't be the next step in our evolution because the World's problems are too serious to allow a bunch of pirates and gunslingers to shoot up the town.  Seriously, Cenk, do you really think that profit maximization has much of a future?  If you argue that capitalism is a good system that needs to be regulated, then you already are a socialist, whether you can accept it or not.  Welcome to the fold, comrade!

 

by Jcable on 09/16/2009 04:46:17 PM EST

I turned of rating... (none / 0)
so, I gotta respond: 6/5*. Right on, comrade! Capitalism is human nature, that is right, but so is killing and raping. Some human traits have to be regulated in order for our species, societies and the individuals to survive and prosper safely.

The amassing of money and power we see today is exactly how it has happened many times throughout history, when unregulated capitalism ruled. And Earth's resources won't sustain unlimited growth. I think peak capital might already have been reached or it is very close to it. Certainly the U.S. is. Why else would they invent nonsense (= get-rich-quick-bubble-schem es) like naked CDSs and Cap and Trade to artificially inflate the economy?

by eborujion on 09/16/2009 07:17:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sustainable growth is ultimately an oxymoron (none / 0)
I've learned a lot though TYT, but Cenk himself seems to be something of a slow learner. He accepts that he is naive in some regards, but each time he cheerleads for capitalism I cringe a little.

There are two problems with capitalism:

1.  It works.
2.  Unless rigorously controlled it is guaranteed eventually to consume and destroy everything, including itself.

Cenk, if you can so easily grasp the futility of the 'War on Drugs', surely you can understand the much simpler concept of the impossibility of infinite growth in a finite system?

Fortunately or otherwise the point seems likely to prove academic, as growth appears to have hit a brick wall. Or perhaps a rubber wall might be more appropriate, as capitalism and its supporters are bound to keep trying to push forward, only to be bounced back by the limits to growth. (Hey, that would make a book title!)

Chances are there will be no sustained recovery, no return to business as usual; and your dream of an ideal capitalist system will remain just that, reform or no reform.

Cenk, it might help a little if you could break free of the spell of mainstream economic thinking and try to see physical reality. Watch how those green shoots do over the next few months.

Have you asked Jesus what he thinks about Cantarell?

Or you can just cling to your current thinking as long as possible.

by Landbeyond on 09/17/2009 08:02:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Rats... (none / 0)
Should read: '...would make a good book title!'

by Landbeyond on 09/17/2009 08:11:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0)
"surely you can understand the much simpler concept of the impossibility of infinite growth in a finite system?"
Who says that the system is finite?
You seem to have a very primitive grasp of economy. Which is generally the problem with modern America.
Americans have to find (invent) new markets to compete on.
They can't compete with Third World countries when it comes to the costs of producing something, but they could use ingenuity and education to find new markets.
Some examples from recent decades:

Computers
Internet merchandizing/porn/platform s...
Beauty products for men
Wellness
Mobile phones (and thousands of applications)
The entertainment and education markets are nearly infinit if they are marketed correctly

Those are just from the top of my head. They all expanded the system beyond its recent borders. The system would only be infint if we would decide not to increase the amount of money in the world. Since money is worth what people believe it's worth there is no inherent problem.
The only problem is that Americans over-evaluate themselves and will soon face a terrible clash with reality.

All that said I still think that socialism is the superior system, but sadly it is not as inevitable as I would hope.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 09/17/2009 09:03:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, really - a clarification (none / 0)
When I say 'the system is finite' I am referring to the planet and all the resources therein. These include non-renewables such as minerals, fossil fuels, 'fossil' water, and fast-disappearing habitats and species on land and in the oceans. It also covers what are effectively non-renewables like soil and ancient forests.

Hence, whether or not I 'have a very primitive grasp of economy' is irrelevant.

I didn't mention America.

Your examples of goods, services and markets all involve the consumption and eventual destruction/dissipation of elements of the physical world that cannot be replaced.

Money is an instrument employed in the economic system. It's a whole other topic and of no direct relevance to the points I made.

Economics and capitalism take no account of the impact of economic activity on the world in which we live or of its physical limitations. That is the problem; and that is what Cenk has yet to get to intellectual grips with.

by Landbeyond on 09/17/2009 04:24:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You need to get to intellectual grips with this: (none / 0)
"When I say 'the system is finite' I am referring to the planet and all the resources therein. These include non-renewables such as minerals, fossil fuels, 'fossil' water, and fast-disappearing habitats and species on land and in the oceans. It also covers what are effectively non-renewables like soil and ancient forests."

The planet is growing. There is a constant surplus of energy coming from the sun. If we would exploit all the energy provided by the sun, the weather and the earth's core we could expand for several centuries. Surely long enough until we go to other planets to exploit them. It's just a question of money. It is said that the total amount of energy within the universe is constant, but it will take quite some time until we have exploited all that. Anyway, of what relavance is the physical composition of the planet, when we are talking economics?

"Your examples of goods, services and markets all involve the consumption and eventual destruction/dissipation of elements of the physical world that cannot be replaced."

Some of my examples:

(Internet) porn: Admitted there is some energy necessary to produce and watch it, but porn is a nearly infinite resource.

Wellness: I really don't understand how Yoga, fasting and other holistic meditation7diet techniques destroy the planet.

Marketing: Absolutely doesn't have to involve the destruction of resources.

Another good example, that I didn't mention before, is Green Technology. Not heard of 30 years ago but now it is enormous.

"Money is an instrument employed in the economic system. It's a whole other topic and of no direct relevance to the points I made."

As I mentioned above money is directly related to the topic, because it is the reason, that renewable energy is currently more expensive than oil and gas. That's going to change when it is necessary for capitalism to continue growing.

"Economics and capitalism take no account of the impact of economic activity on the world in which we live or of its physical limitations."

Capitalism isn't about the physical limitation, its about ideas. It's much closer related to religion than physics. As lon as people believe in capitalism and money it will work, and as long as it will work people will believe in it.
Unless something drastical is done to change it. We need a new enlightenment.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 09/18/2009 12:24:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Er, say what? (none / 0)
'The planet is growing.'

I guess there's the constant bombardment by meteorites, but...

'There is a constant surplus of energy coming from the sun.'

Energy = matter, but it doesn't equal the non-energy, non-renewable physical resources we depend on.  

'If we would exploit all the energy provided by the sun, the weather and the earth's core...'
 
That's rather the point, or an important part of it. We're dependent on fossil fuels, and we're at Peak Oil.

'...we could expand for several centuries.'
 
No, we couldn't, because we don't have sufficient non-energy, non-rerenewable resources.

'Surely long enough until we go to other planets to exploit them.'

Perhaps we should get through the next 6 or 12 months without economic collapse first?

'It's just a question of money.'

Money is a medium; it doesn't create physical resources.

'Anyway, of what relavance (sic) is the physical composition of the planet, when we are talking economics?'

No physical resources = no economy = no economics.

'Green' is good, but all goods, services and marketing, without exception, consume resources, and deplete them unless they rely totally on renewable resources.

'...money is directly related to the topic, because it is the reason, that renewable energy is currently more expensive than oil and gas.'
 
It's more expensive, unfortunately, for various reasons: money itself is just the expression of the difference in cost.

'Capitalism isn't about the physical limitation, its about ideas.'

It's about both.

'We need a new enlightenment.'

No argument here.

I'm sure you believe in your ideas. I strongly urge you to research Peak Oil and peak many other things. You might find your focus changing.

by Landbeyond on 09/18/2009 04:25:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
We're not dependent on oil! (none / 0)
We could generate all the energy we need with renewable (renewing) resouces.
We don't do it because they are more expensive at the moment. When we run out of oil it will become more expensive than solar, wind and other energies.
When this happens we will switch.
The claim that we are dependent on oil is just a hoax to make making money easier for the establishment. Why change, when it is not necessary. When it is necessary the cororationists will change and tell the public that this change demands sacrifices from everyone. What they don't tell us is that these sacrifices will help the establishment to make more money.
Money is the god of capitalism. It is the aim of capitalists to make as much money as possible. It is also the means by which they make money. This is basic marxism supported by the current crisis.
The "good" means of production are no longer factories, but money that can be used to influence the markets to make more money. Clever capitalists have made billions through the current crisis, because they had the money to do so.
It is the job of banks to make money without producing anything and they are really good at it. The crisis helped them because they got stimulus money and will within months have much more than they had before.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 09/18/2009 08:08:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes ... and no (none / 0)
I'll try to keep this short.

Capitalism (while it has its uses) basically sucks.
Corporatism sucks.
Corporatist banks suck.
Bank bailouts suck.
Profiteering oil companies suck.
Corrupt, corporate-owned politicians suck.

Are we on the same page so far?

We could and should generate all or nearly all the energy we need from renewable sources, provided we had controlled the human population. This was recognised many decades ago. Experts warned again, and again, and again -- and were ignored. They are still for the most part being ignored by both the media and our 'leaders'. So now the world's economy i s dependent on oil for transport, agriculture (including the 'Green Revolution') and much besides. It shouldn't be, but it is; and it sucks.

We need to get off oil. We will never run out of oil, but the amount of cheap, energy-intensive oil available is about to start falling. That will have dire economic consequences, and will prevent us from easily scaling up adequate renewable energy sources.

We are on the brink of disaster and most people aren't even aware of it. You care about what's happening, but it's about more than economic exploitation (which is happening, and yes, it sucks).

Honestly, the best thing you can do, even at this stage, if you're not afraid of grappling with new ideas and demonstrable facts, is to make yourself Peak Oil aware.

You could do worse than start here: 

http://www.energybulletin.n et/primer

and/or here:

http://www.theoildrum.com/t ag/overview

Some people can't or won't grasp PO. It's a shocking concept. It is spreading, however, which is why Exxon sends out its minions to write articles attempting to 'debunk' it.

If you make it past the 'This can't be true!' stage I guarantee you will see the world - and the current crisis - differently.

You might even be back on here helping to educate Cenk on the subject.

Okay, so I didn't keep this short. I have no more to say about corporatists and capitalists. Good luck.

by Landbeyond on 09/18/2009 12:33:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We're on the same page (none / 0)
I agree with you on all the things you said but one. I admitt that we may have reached Peak Oil, but I don't think it's a desaster.
We could still generate all our energy needs with renewable (I hate this misnomer) energy.
The reason we don't do it is that it is too expensive.
This will change as soon as oil becomes more expensive. Energy prices might rise for a certain time, in the transition period, but then they will come down again, because sustainable energy will be cheaper in the long run.
Capitalism just wants to exploit the current system as long as possible, until it is forced to expand by investing in sustainable energy.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 09/18/2009 12:48:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
About that transition period (none / 0)
Ah, yes, 'the transition period'. It doesn't sound too bad if you say it quickly.

To put it bluntly, 'the transition period' will probably result in your early death.

Nonsense? Then just forget about it. I don't plan on arguing the case here.

I provided two refs earlier that anyone with any interest in their or their children's future would be well-advised to check out. Here are two more.

First, an academic's interesting and quite comrehensive overview of what the world faces and why:

http://www.drmillslmu.com/p eakoil.htm

If that looks a little daunting, try listening to a recent recording of a talk given by Hyman Rickover in 1957. It illustrates what I mentioned about warnings from experts. Apparently something of a genius, Rickover is known as the father of the US nuclear submarine. He also had an incredibly clear-eyed view of the future of energy.

Here is where you can find the downloadable file (it's the first, larger one):

http://www.energybulletin.n et/audio/by/title/rickovere nergy

Giving too much attention to energy prices and the evils of capitalism will obscure the more, the much more significant reality that's hiding, as they say, in plain view.

by Landbeyond on 09/19/2009 06:19:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
PS: (none / 0)
79.2 percent of the American GDP is created in the service industry.
That's an industry that is usually not very energy and resource demanding.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 09/18/2009 10:42:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Corporatists vs. Capitalists (Now with Fun AOL Poll) | 36 comments (36 topical, 0 hidden)